35006
Post by: Medium of Death
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/lesbian-couple-accuses-christian-bakers-of-mental-rape-awarded-135000/
LESBIAN COUPLE ACCUSES CHRISTIAN BAKERS OF ‘MENTAL RAPE,’ AWARDED $135,000
An Oregon judge has awarded Lesbian couple Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer $135,000 for “emotional damages” in a lawsuit against Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes Bakery. They are a Christian couple who declined to provide a wedding cake to the same-sex couple in 2013.
In their lawsuit, the two women claimed they felt “mentally raped,” as part of a list of 88 symptoms of emotional distress they experienced at being refused a cake.
The long list of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
The judge apparently found it unremarkable that “loss of appetite” and “impaired digestion” should lead to “weight gain.”
“[T]he forum concludes that $75,000 and $60,000, are appropriate awards to compensate for the emotional suffering they experienced,” wrote Alan McCullough, administrative law judge for Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, in his proposed order.
The award will reportedly bankrupt the seven-member Klein family and force Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery to shut down. The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, said that the damages awarded were not limited to the sale of business assets, but would be taken out of their personal funds.
“The important thing to realize is this,” Harmon said, “This is real money that Aaron and Melissa are going to have to pay that otherwise would be used to pay their mortgage and feed their kids.”
In January of 2013, Laurel Bowman said the bakery would not sell her and her fiancée, Rachel Cryer, a wedding cake. She added that Aaron Klein, co-owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, told her that providing them with a wedding cake would be against their religious principles.
This past February, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) announced that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery must pay the lesbian couple damages for refusing to sell them a wedding cake. BOLI spokesman Charlie Burr said there was sufficient evidence that the bakers discriminated against the same-sex couple.
A GoFundMe crowdfunding page in support of the bakery had been set up, but was deleted after the judge’s ruling Friday, since GoFundMe’s terms of service do not allow fundraising for people found in violation of the law.
What a couple of class acts.
82151
Post by: Brennonjw
wow. the people who were asked to make the cake said no due to their beliefs, and got sued, so does that mean no longer expressing beliefs in the US? Not that I agree with them, but to sue for the bullcrap that the lesbian couple did is just beyond scum.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Normal people would have just taken their business elsewhere.
Takes a special kind of donkey cave to take legal action.
Takes a fethed up court system for them to actually win.
25990
Post by: Chongara
On the one hand:
The long list of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
Smells like a pile of horse plop to me.
On the other hand. The judge bought it and the judge was there, I wasn't it. If I assume the judge is at least as good or better a horse-plop detector than me my initially feelings are wrong. Also, they were kind of being dicks.
I'm not really a fan of the american tradition of suing over everything but if we're going to be throwing lawsuits around like this, I can think of worse things for them to be over than discriminatory business practices.
21196
Post by: agnosto
I hate to break this to people that are probably working themselves up into a frenzy but sexual orientation is a protected class under Oregon state law:
Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx
So technically speaking, the store owners had no right to refuse service to begin with which opened themselves up to the lawsuit. Knowing your responsibilities under the law is just as important as knowing your rights.
All of that said, as has already been mentioned by Alex C, the non donkey-cave approach would have been to just go on to the next cake shop down the road.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
81166
Post by: Hanskrampf
While I feel that the owners deserve punishment for discrimination, sueing them into bankrupcy is also fethed up.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
"Felt mentally raped"
The stupidy among these two women women amazes me.
Hoping the bakery appeals the verdict and they get a proper lawyer to fix the problem.
514
Post by: Orlanth
I didnt know the cake controversy had a US angle.
The test case I heard of (and was discussed by Dakka) was in Northern Ireland.
That is a ridiculous sum at the best of intentions, let alone forced attendance to an opposed ethos.
This gentlemen is why the laws allowing religious non participation as set in Indiana are necessary.
As for the defendants, this is religious persecution in Western society. Abandon your beliefs or we will ruin you, sort of gak you expect in the Soviet Union.
There are a lot of spiritual analogies here from End Times references to the point that the grief the lesbian couple had was actually from their God given conscience.
25990
Post by: Chongara
 MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Oh, well that's certainly not OK. Isn't that the kind of thing you should go to jail for?
27151
Post by: streamdragon
I think the biggest problem is that you're using Breitbart for news. 
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Kids, please read. Thanks.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Marie Antionette would be so disappointed....
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Chongara wrote: MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Oh, well that's certainly not OK. Isn't that the kind of thing you should go to jail for?
its a matter of public record.
25990
Post by: Chongara
 Frazzled wrote: Chongara wrote: MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Oh, well that's certainly not OK. Isn't that the kind of thing you should go to jail for?
its a matter of public record.
So is a lot of things. That doesn't make posting "Here is [public record information] on [individual] they have [this thing] go make their life a living hell, please", OK. That might not have been their exact words but the way I read that post was that they'd been encouraging people to harass the couple.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
That posting of their personal details by the bakery on social media caused a gak storm that if you actually read the case and not just a news title from fething Breitbart, you might understand the amount awarded.
Chongara, I have no idea if they "actively" had the couple harassed, but posting a social media post which has a title like "this is what happens when you refuse to serve gays", and then add their address and names, you'd have to be fething braindead to think it wasn't going to happen.
443
Post by: skyth
Frazzled wrote: Chongara wrote: MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Oh, well that's certainly not OK. Isn't that the kind of thing you should go to jail for?
its a matter of public record.
Huge difference between being a matter of public record and posting it on a social media site.
By posting it on a social media site, they were really encouraging their supporters to harass the people. They took an action to try to punish the people suing outside the legal system.
Just like posting the home address of an accused child molester.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
We are a hyper-capitalist nation.
You are entitled to your religious beliefs. You are not entitled to use said religious beliefs to discriminate against paying customers.
Making the cakes for a wedding is not participating in the wedding. You're the caterer, not a participating or witnessing party. Make the cake, take the money, stfu and move on.
Further, this selective interpretation of the Bible to fit whatever socio-political narrative panders best in the polls has got to stop. It's an all or nothing thing. So if these so-called Christians are not going to start stoning those who wear blended fabrics, people who divorce, adulterers, people who work on the Sabbath, and people who make poisons, then making a cake for some people can be tolerated as well. It's a cake, they're not asking you to testify in Congress.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Just a statement of fact. Having been the subject of multiple lawsuits, they are far far worse.
Moral of the story.
*Set up as an LLC,even if just a shop.
*Your ethics should be about your business, not the ethics of your clients, if they are legal. If thats an issue, pursue a different line of work.
Alternatively:
*Lie. Don't say its against your religion. Say sorry but you don't sell cakes to buttheads 
514
Post by: Orlanth
Looking deeper at the article.
Supplier to the Kliens stopped trading with them.
- So refusing service to Christians is acceptable, but not homosexuals.
The Kliens van was broken into and trashed twice, and they had to close their store, before the hearing due to abuse.
- Who are the haters?
As for the cake. The Lesbian couple got offers of free cake from a lot of sources, in most cases reactions like that is cheering and emboldening, and in long term would make you feel good about yourself. Which is probably why they decided to sue only several months later.
The bakers lost not only their business by apparently the fines are personal, and strike through the limited liabilities of a company, something normally left to only the most extreme cases.
Also if the crowdfund to support the bakers is killed by the ruling how will they fund an appeal? They are allowed to appeal right, and allowed to seek assistance doing so, everyone else normally is.
Gak like this will wake up a lot of churches, the resolution is so heavy handed that it will actually set back actual LGBT rights, as well as religious ones, in favour of the phony rights 'violation' this case and others like it entail.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 skyth wrote: Frazzled wrote: Chongara wrote: MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Oh, well that's certainly not OK. Isn't that the kind of thing you should go to jail for?
its a matter of public record.
Huge difference between being a matter of public record and posting it on a social media site.
By posting it on a social media site, they were really encouraging their supporters to harass the people. They took an action to try to punish the people suing outside the legal system.
Just like posting the home address of an accused child molester.
I'm sure you were equally up in arms over the doxxing of Darren Wilson then, too?
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
So you agree both were wrong then? Ok.
21196
Post by: agnosto
 Orlanth wrote:
The bakers lost not only their business by apparently the fines are personal, and strike through the limited liabilities of a company, something normally left to only the most extreme cases.
Also if the crowdfund to support the bakers is killed by the ruling how will they fund an appeal? They are allowed to appeal right, and allowed to seek assistance doing so, everyone else normally is.
Gak like this will wake up a lot of churches, the resolution is so heavy handed that it will actually set back actual LGBT rights, as well as religious ones, in favour of the phony rights 'violation' this case and others like it entail.
It's because they hid behind personal convictions instead of a valid, legal right. Once they chose to go that route, they lost the protection of any corporate filing status.
My message to both parties: "Don't be a-holes to each other."
No phony rights here; sexual orientation is actually a protected class in Oregon and the bakery had no legal right to refuse service under state public accommodation statute.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Yup. Neither are as fethed up as suing someone because they don't want to make a cake for you when others offered to do so for free.
And releasing Wilsons was worse, with the credible death threats and all.
514
Post by: Orlanth
MrDwhitey wrote: MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Kids, please read. Thanks.
Will do, again, just in the off chance you had a valid point..
http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/Sweetcakes%20signed%20PO.pdf
The forum awarded Complainants $75,000 and $60,000, respectively, in damages for emotional and mental suffering resulting from the cake denial. Front page
This is reiterated on page four.
MrDwhitey wrote:The PDF you linked certainly is, but no-one's going to read it. It might challenge their "gays bad cake place good" narrative.
That posting of their personal details by the bakery on social media caused a shitstorm that if you actually read the case and not just a news title from fething Breitbart, you might understand the amount awarded.
Chongara, I have no idea if they "actively" had the couple harassed, but posting a social media post which has a title like "this is what happens when you refuse to serve gays", and then add their address and names, you'd have to be fething braindead to think it wasn't going to happen.
I would be interested to see this PDF which supposedly trumps the actual court documentation on the findings of the court.
But then if its not the bakers fault enough, change the goalposts.
Also keep in mind that the defendants which had no anonymity in the documentation have also been victimised on the grounds that they were targeted for the lawsuit, prior to its findings.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/04/sweet_cakes_5_things_you_shoul.html#incart_related_stories
An administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries awarded $75,000 to Rachel Cryer-Bowman and $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer in compensatory damages for "emotional suffering" they experienced from the "cake refusal." The judge denied any award for "caused by media and social media attention to this case."
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Didn't want to bake cake, and then when a complaint was received posted the complainants personal details online to social media (and thus causing it to become a news story) causing them a lot of trouble in their personal lives.
Not just "refused to bake a cake".
221
Post by: Frazzled
It's because they hid behind personal convictions instead of a valid, legal right. Once they chose to go that route, they lost the protection of any corporate filing status.
You answer is awesome except its...wrong. They were a sole/proprietor/partnership. As such they are liable for the debts of the enterprise.
It has nothing to do with morality or being "wrong." its just basic business law.
Got Derp?
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Why should a Christian bakery need to supply a gay couple's wedding cake?
Should a Muslim caterer be forced to handle pork just because you want them to cater to you?
Why are you forced to take somebodies money from them if you disagree with them on a fundamental level?
It's utter nonsense. I'm sure there are plenty of homosexual friendly cake shops.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I'm sure there are plenty of black friendly shops.
If the Judge specifically stated that the emotional damages do not include any caused by the posting of their personal addresses and names online, then the amount awarded is too much.
81166
Post by: Hanskrampf
 Medium of Death wrote:Why should a Christian bakery need to supply a gay couple's wedding cake?
Should a Muslim caterer be forced to handle pork just because you want them to cater to you?
Why are you forced to take somebodies money from them if you disagree with them on a fundamental level?
It's utter nonsense. I'm sure there are plenty of homosexual friendly cake shops.
Hold on here, there's a difference between "We don't do wedding cakes" and "We won't bake you a weeding cake for [discriminating reason]".
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
That's not what's being discussed though.
This is a religious disagreement. Not a racial one.
Nobody is arguing for racial discrimination.
Nice try to shift the argument though.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
The award will reportedly bankrupt the seven-member Klein family and force Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery to shut down. The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, said that the damages awarded were not limited to the sale of business assets, but would be taken out of their personal funds.
Good. Maybe this will send a message to the rest of the donkey caves that their invisible friend doesn't give them a free pass from the law.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Medium of Death wrote:That's not what's being discussed though.
This is a religious disagreement. Not a racial one.
Nobody is arguing for racial discrimination.
Nice try to shift the argument though.
It's discrimination based on sexuality.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Frazzled wrote:
It's because they hid behind personal convictions instead of a valid, legal right. Once they chose to go that route, they lost the protection of any corporate filing status.
You answer is awesome except its...wrong. They were a sole/proprietor/partnership. As such they are liable for the debts of the enterprise.
It has nothing to do with morality or being "wrong." its just basic business law.
Got Derp?
Meh. I didn't look at how they filed, nor cared to; I suppose it's just hard to imagine people dumb enough to file as sole proprietors when there are so many reasons not to. Sure, the paperwork is a bit easier but the liability (as they found out) is....yeah, friends don't let friends be sole proprietors.
The derp here is on the bakery owners and their lack of business savvy.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Medium of Death wrote:That's not what's being discussed though. This is a religious disagreement. Not a racial one. Nobody is arguing for racial discrimination. Nice try to shift the argument though.
No, this is a couple of bigots trying to use religion to justify their bigotry. That that bigotry is sexual instead of racial is of no importance. 50 years ago theses exact same arguments were being used to justify segregation. There is nothing in the Bible that prevents the baking of cakes to anyone, Jesus wanted everyone to have cake equally.
514
Post by: Orlanth
 agnosto wrote:
It's because they hid behind personal convictions instead of a valid, legal right. Once they chose to go that route, they lost the protection of any corporate filing status.
My message to both parties: "Don't be a-holes to each other."
No phony rights here; sexual orientation is actually a protected class in Oregon and the bakery had no legal right to refuse service under state public accommodation statute.
Oregon has a legal right to persecute. I cant contest that because the legal right to persecute exists in Oregon, thus it is legal.
It's still morally wrong though.
The bakers were trying to not participate in baking a cake to cerebrate gay marriage, something that offends their ethos. Until they knew it was a gay wedding cake they had no problems baking a cake for the lesbians. Oregon laws made no distinction sadly which is why the protection available in an increasing number of states, the same protection groups like GenCon are riling against, are necessary.
Remember it is the presense of personal convictions that meant that the planitiffs claimed “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
However relgious people are not entitled to any defence against having the same sentiments enforced on them. Logically it is the same to be forced to bake a cake for an opposed ethos as to be denied one due to an opposed ethos. Could the baker feel 'mentally raped, dirty and shameful' for being forced to participate in propagating an opposed ethos? Frankly I dont think so because the planitiffs laments are an excessive wail for a cash trail, but what genuine grief they felt would be less as a point of simple denial than would be suffered for forced participation, especuially as the service could be gained from elsewhere, and multiple cakes were indeed offer to the lesbian couple, for free.
Also note that the fact they got offers of multiple cakes also meant the couple did not keep quiet about their 'ordeal', presumably this was a cause of the open hate and discrimination the bakers themselves suffered.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Just FYI you don't get to say the above, after posting
Medium of Death wrote:
Should a Muslim caterer be forced to handle pork just because you want them to cater to you?.
Which doesn't so much shift the argument but is in fact is nothing at all to do with the case at hand as this is an entirely spurious argument.
It's like claiming that a garage has discriminated against you if they won't fix your water boiler.
If it's not something they do anyway then it's not an issue.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
PhantomViper wrote:The award will reportedly bankrupt the seven-member Klein family and force Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery to shut down. The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, said that the damages awarded were not limited to the sale of business assets, but would be taken out of their personal funds.
Good. Maybe this will send a message to the rest of the donkey caves that their invisible friend doesn't give them a free pass from the law.
I'm constantly reminded, however, that this free pass to be an donkey-cave is extended to anyone in a social vogue class or an atheist. So that's cool.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Medium of Death wrote:Should a Muslim caterer be forced to handle pork just because you want them to cater to you?
If that is on their menu, then yeah. Why would they take those jobs if their religion prevent them from handling pork anyway?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 cincydooley wrote:PhantomViper wrote:The award will reportedly bankrupt the seven-member Klein family and force Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery to shut down. The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, said that the damages awarded were not limited to the sale of business assets, but would be taken out of their personal funds.
Good. Maybe this will send a message to the rest of the donkey caves that their invisible friend doesn't give them a free pass from the law.
I'm constantly reminded, however, that this free pass to be an donkey-cave is extended to anyone in a social vogue class or an atheist. So that's cool.
It is? Care to site any examples where atheists or members of a "social vogue class" can just ignore the law?
1206
Post by: Easy E
I love it when inflexible people get together and battle over their inflexible belief systems! The real probelm is that sexual orientation is not a protected class in all 50 states and US Territories yet.
The baker in me say, show some fething professionalism. Sure, by the letter of the law, LGBT were not a protected class in their state; but Baker's should bake. If you can't do the job due to personal ethics, than move into a different profession that aligns with your personal ethics. Don't try to twist the professional ethics to fit your personal ethics.
Bakers who do not bake, go bankrupt. Simple really.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
PhantomViper wrote:It is? Care to site any examples where atheists or members of a "social vogue class" can just ignore the law?
He said we had a free pass to be donkey cave, not to break the law. Which is stupid. Because everyone can be a donkey-cave, and everyone will suffer the consequences though.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
So, Am I the only one that read the case record in the link posted on the first page?
Two Points:
1) While the couple getting married filed the complaint, It was the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that file the formal charges.
2) The bakery owners violated the established laws of the State, by the denial and by going on TV and Radio to "explain". These are on the linked page with the violations listed on pages 9 and 10 of same.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Ugh, looking at the "symptoms", it's impossible to side with the lesbian couple. Poor form, ladies. Those symptoms don't even make sense. Judge sounds like an idiot (or someone afraid of being sued himself for "humiliating a gay couple" after he finds their symptoms ridiculous). I'm all for gay couples being treated fairly. This isn't fairness; this is full on donkey cave. To be perfectly honest, I hope support is rallied for the bakery and the lawsuit is taken higher and thrown out. Simply on the grounds of the BS "symptoms".
221
Post by: Frazzled
Meh. I didn't look at how they filed, nor cared to; I suppose it's just hard to imagine people dumb enough to file as sole proprietors when there are so many reasons not to. Sure, the paperwork is a bit easier but the liability (as they found out) is....yeah, friends don't let friends be sole proprietors.
I forwarded the actual ruling, which I read. It wasn't long. As others have noted...don't trust Breitbart for your news unless independently verified.
The derp here is on the bakery owners and their lack of business savvy.
Yea. They are bakers though, not KKR (crap I just dated myself).
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Frazzled wrote:As others have noted...don't trust Breitbart for your news unless independently verified.
Gamergate made me discover Breitbart. A match made in heaven. Or hell, maybe.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Easy E wrote:I love it when inflexible people get together and battle over their inflexible belief systems! The real probelm is that sexual orientation is not a protected class in all 50 states and US Territories yet.
The baker in me say, show some fething professionalism. Sure, by the letter of the law, LGBT were not a protected class in their state; but Baker's should bake. If you can't do the job due to personal ethics, than move into a different profession that aligns with your personal ethics. Don't try to twist the professional ethics to fit your personal ethics.
So why can't your personal ethics be ingrained in your closely held, small, private business ventures? I'll never understand that rationale.
Bakers who do not bake, go bankrupt. Simple really.
Then we should let that happen if it's going to. If a business wants to remove potential clients, let them. That's their prerogative. I'm of the belief that 2015 is very different than 1960 and that news travels far faster, and as such businesses that openly discriminate will go under due to lack of business. And we should let them. But this lawsuit, and especially their claims (I mean seriously, where are all the rape culture activists decrying the use of "rape" here in a completely absurd way), are ridiculous.
50326
Post by: curran12
As pointed out, the couple did not make the formal charges. Hell, wouldn't it be a kick if that couple refused the charges, or gave them back to the bakery? I doubt it. But that would be the only course of happy endings here.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Orlanth wrote: agnosto wrote:
It's because they hid behind personal convictions instead of a valid, legal right. Once they chose to go that route, they lost the protection of any corporate filing status.
My message to both parties: "Don't be a-holes to each other."
No phony rights here; sexual orientation is actually a protected class in Oregon and the bakery had no legal right to refuse service under state public accommodation statute.
Oregon has a legal right to persecute. I cant contest that because the legal right to persecute exists in Oregon, thus it is legal.
It's still morally wrong though.
The bakers were trying to not participate in baking a cake to cerebrate gay marriage, something that offends their ethos. Until they knew it was a gay wedding cake they had no problems baking a cake for the lesbians. Oregon laws made no distinction sadly which is why the protection available in an increasing number of states, the same protection groups like GenCon are riling against, are necessary.
Remember it is the presense of personal convictions that meant that the planitiffs claimed “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
However relgious people are not entitled to any defence against having the same sentiments enforced on them. Logically it is the same to be forced to bake a cake for an opposed ethos as to be denied one due to an opposed ethos. Could the baker feel 'mentally raped, dirty and shameful' for being forced to participate in propagating an opposed ethos? Frankly I dont think so because the planitiffs laments are an excessive wail for a cash trail, but what genuine grief they felt would be less as a point of simple denial than would be suffered for forced participation, especuially as the service could be gained from elsewhere, and multiple cakes were indeed offer to the lesbian couple, for free.
Also note that the fact they got offers of multiple cakes also meant the couple did not keep quiet about their 'ordeal', presumably this was a cause of the open hate and discrimination the bakers themselves suffered.
You should also note that it all started with a complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The bakery owners were given ample opportunity for "reconciliation and rehabilitation" as per state statute but refused and were found in breach of state law so in addition to the civil lawsuit, they're being fined by the state.
At one point arbitration was possible:
Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
but:
Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.” Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.
“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”
So, they were offered arbitration, refused and the civil charges ensued. Funnily enough, the source of the above quotes was Fox news.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
1206
Post by: Easy E
@Cincy- Yes, I agree with your second point. Part of what puts people out of business is legal issues.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Frazzled wrote:
Meh. I didn't look at how they filed, nor cared to; I suppose it's just hard to imagine people dumb enough to file as sole proprietors when there are so many reasons not to. Sure, the paperwork is a bit easier but the liability (as they found out) is....yeah, friends don't let friends be sole proprietors.
I forwarded the actual ruling, which I read. It wasn't long. As others have noted...don't trust Breitbart for your news unless independently verified.
The derp here is on the bakery owners and their lack of business savvy.
Yea. They are bakers though, not KKR (crap I just dated myself).
I scanned it but missed the filing status. Again, meh.
My sister owns a small Avon shop locally and probably moves less money through her store than these bakers did and she still consulted an attorney and an accountant before opening her business. It doesn't take a college degree (she doesn't have one) or special skills to use your noggin and ask experts before placing your family's livelihood on the line, just a modicum of common sense and forethought.
Especially in our overly litigious society, you would think that people would want as much legal protection as possible and these folks were in the food business for crying out loud. If one person were to get sick, they'd be in worse shape than they are now.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The owners broke an Oregon law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Don't want to go out of business? Try not breaking the law, for starters.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 jasper76 wrote:Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The owners broke an Oregon law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Don't want to go out of business? Try not breaking the law, for starters.
The law violated their religious beliefs. First Amendment usually trumps. Thats also why many statess that protect against this sort of abuse.
Interesting if this will be taken up and tested at a higher level.
7150
Post by: helgrenze
Symptoms of Depression, according to the Mayo Clinic ( Found here):
•Feelings of sadness, emptiness or unhappiness
•Angry outbursts, irritability or frustration, even over small matters
•Loss of interest or pleasure in normal activities, such as sex
•Sleep disturbances, including insomnia or sleeping too much
•Tiredness and lack of energy, so that even small tasks take extra effort
•Changes in appetite — often reduced appetite and weight loss, but increased cravings for food and weight gain in some people
•Anxiety, agitation or restlessness — for example, excessive worrying, pacing, hand-wringing or an inability to sit still
•Slowed thinking, speaking or body movements
•Feelings of worthlessness or guilt, fixating on past failures or blaming yourself for things that are not your responsibility
•Trouble thinking, concentrating, making decisions and remembering things
•Frequent thoughts of death, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts or suicide
•Unexplained physical problems, such as back pain or headaches
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
 reds8n wrote: Just FYI you don't get to say the above, after posting Medium of Death wrote: Should a Muslim caterer be forced to handle pork just because you want them to cater to you?.
Which doesn't so much shift the argument but is in fact is nothing at all to do with the case at hand as this is an entirely spurious argument. It's like claiming that a garage has discriminated against you if they won't fix your water boiler. If it's not something they do anyway then it's not an issue.
It's a lot closer than the race comparison. Perhaps they only order in Brides and Groom cake decorations as pairs. Perhaps they couldn't afford to have spares? (Sarcasm) Also the fact that you can have a Muslim Butcher but not a Christian bakery shows the absurdity of this situation. So one religious group should be allowed to circumvent some laws while another shouldn't? http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/index.html Welcome to Sweet Cakes! Are you looking for a wedding cake or for an occasion? Our cakes are custom made and designed to fit you. When coming to Sweet Cakes you can get a cake that will be sure to be a memorable part of your special day! We hope our website is helpful to you. We do cakes for all different kinds of occasions. All of our cakes are made from scratch using the best ingredients. All real stuff! Our cakes are always fresh and moist. Cake is what makes the day special whatever you are celebrating, birthday, baby shower, wedding, bridal shower, anniversary, holidays, or just having a special dinner with special people. When you have a piece of our cake, we are sure that you will want a second piece. So take a look. Give us a call and we can talk about the cake that is on your mind. We here at Sweet Cakes strongly believe that when a man and woman come together to be joined as one, it is truly one of the most special days of their lives, we feel truely honored when we are chosen to do the cake for your special day. melissa@sweetcakesweb.com "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16
It's quite clear from their website that they are Christian. This is just another example of Statists taking advantage of an otherwise trusting Christian family. .
514
Post by: Orlanth
 helgrenze wrote:So, Am I the only one that read the case record in the link posted on the first page?
Two Points:
1) While the couple getting married filed the complaint, It was the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that file the formal charges.
2) The bakery owners violated the established laws of the State, by the denial and by going on TV and Radio to "explain". These are on the linked page with the violations listed on pages 9 and 10 of same.
1. No complaints at that, the couple complained to the relevant authorities who made the case for pursual. Many such bodies exist to persue companies through the courts on behalf of individual citizens who might not be able to afford the case.
2. The first part was established by the court, this evidences that religious protection laws are not yet implementated in Oregon, as in 28 other states and thus rights legislation is lobsided allowing protected classes to specifically force religious people into violating their ethos or facing punitive measures.
Publicity by either party had no factor in the formal ruling, and both parties pre-publicised the dispute. The lesbian couple by revealing the denial of service and getting free cake from the community, and the bakers when they received the lawsuit. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: jasper76 wrote:Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The owners broke an Oregon law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Don't want to go out of business? Try not breaking the law, for starters.
The law violated their religious beliefs. First Amendment usually trumps. Thats also why many states that protect against this sort of abuse.
Interesting if this will be taken up and tested at a higher level.
This.
The owners broke the law in Oregon which legally labeled 'preventation of violation of religious beliefs' as 'discrimination'.
Just because the law is written that was doesn't make it just.
Rosa Park broke the law. She sat in a white only part of a bus. What she did was illegal, but was what she did 'wrong'?
It will be interesting to find out of the bakers can appeal to a higher body that respects the First Amendment properly.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Medium of Death wrote:[
Also the fact that you can have a Muslim Butcher but not a Christian bakery shows the absurdity of this situation.
So one religious group should be allowed to circumvent some laws while another shouldn't?
If a "Christian bakery" means "discriminating groups of people", yeah.
A Muslim Butcher, in this example, simply doesn't sell pork - which is completely different from not selling your products to gay people.
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
Luke 6:37 (KJV):
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
The bakers judged. They were judged..
The bakers condemned. They were condemned.
The bakers did not forgive. They were not forgiven.
Rules as written.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Medium of Death wrote: reds8n wrote:
Just FYI you don't get to say the above, after posting
Medium of Death wrote:
Should a Muslim caterer be forced to handle pork just because you want them to cater to you?.
Which doesn't so much shift the argument but is in fact is nothing at all to do with the case at hand as this is an entirely spurious argument.
It's like claiming that a garage has discriminated against you if they won't fix your water boiler.
If it's not something they do anyway then it's not an issue.
It's a lot closer than the race comparison.
Perhaps they only order in Brides and Groom cake decorations as pairs. Perhaps they couldn't afford to have spares? (Sarcasm)
Also the fact that you can have a Muslim Butcher but not a Christian bakery shows the absurdity of this situation.
So one religious group should be allowed to circumvent some laws while another shouldn't?
http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/index.html
Welcome to Sweet Cakes! Are you looking for a wedding cake or for an occasion? Our cakes are custom made and designed to fit you. When coming to Sweet Cakes you can get a cake that will be sure to be a memorable part of your special day! We hope our website is helpful to you. We do cakes for all different kinds of occasions. All of our cakes are made from scratch using the best ingredients. All real stuff! Our cakes are always fresh and moist.
Cake is what makes the day special whatever you are celebrating, birthday, baby shower, wedding, bridal shower, anniversary, holidays, or just having a special dinner with special people.
When you have a piece of our cake, we are sure that you will want a second piece. So take a look. Give us a call and we can talk about the cake that is on your mind.
We here at Sweet Cakes strongly believe that when a man and woman come together to be joined as one, it is truly one of the most special days of their lives, we feel truely honored when we are chosen to do the cake for your special day.
melissa@sweetcakesweb.com
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16
It's quite clear from their website that they are Christian.
This is just another example of Statists taking advantage of an otherwise trusting Christian family.
.
Except Islam has dietary restrictions, so it makes sense to have a muslim butcher. Christianity does not have dietary restrictions, so a christian bakery does not make sense, other than to get some sort of monetary benefit.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
How would selling to less people be a monetary benefit?
You are saying that it is ok for one religion to bend the rules and not the other.
That is the crux of your argument.
34390
Post by: whembly
Wow Oregon... way to defend freedom. o.O
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
No, the Muslim bakery can refuse to serve pork any time they want to. The Christian baker can refuse to use (insert anti-Christian ingredient) in their cakes. If they had refused buttercream frosting to EVERYBODY, they would not have been sued.
Your argument is spurious.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Medium of Death wrote:How would selling to less people be a monetary benefit?
You are saying that it is ok for one religion to bend the rules and not the other.
That is the crux of your argument.
You do realize the states is a majority Christian nation, with nearly 76 percent being so correct? I really do not see how that is selling to less people that make up the majority, but hey maybe math is different over there.
34390
Post by: whembly
 JimOnMars wrote:No, the Muslim bakery can refuse to serve pork any time they want to. The Christian baker can refuse to use (insert anti-Christian ingredient) in their cakes. If they had refused buttercream frosting to EVERYBODY, they would not have been sued.
Your argument is spurious.
Then explain to me why having laws coercing citizens to participate in contracts that should be voluntary is just?
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
 Ustrello wrote: Medium of Death wrote:How would selling to less people be a monetary benefit? You are saying that it is ok for one religion to bend the rules and not the other. That is the crux of your argument.
You do realize the states is a majority Christian nation, with nearly 76 percent being so correct? I really do not see how that is selling to less people that make up the majority, but hey maybe math is different over there.
You said it would be financially beneficial for them to not sell to gay people. I'm not sure how limiting their custom will increase their profits. Unless you are arguing that Christians will travel from all around the United States to specifically use that bakery?
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Medium of Death wrote: Ustrello wrote: Medium of Death wrote:How would selling to less people be a monetary benefit?
You are saying that it is ok for one religion to bend the rules and not the other.
That is the crux of your argument.
You do realize the states is a majority Christian nation, with nearly 76 percent being so correct? I really do not see how that is selling to less people that make up the majority, but hey maybe math is different over there.
You said it would be financially beneficial for them to not sell to gay people.
I'm not sure how limiting their custom will increase their profits.
Unless you are arguing that Christians will travel from all around the United States to specifically use that bakery?
I never said that, I said the only reason for calling themselves a christian bakery would be for a monetary gain in a country that is 3/4s christian.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Ustrello wrote: Medium of Death wrote: Ustrello wrote: Medium of Death wrote:How would selling to less people be a monetary benefit?
You are saying that it is ok for one religion to bend the rules and not the other.
That is the crux of your argument.
You do realize the states is a majority Christian nation, with nearly 76 percent being so correct? I really do not see how that is selling to less people that make up the majority, but hey maybe math is different over there.
You said it would be financially beneficial for them to not sell to gay people.
I'm not sure how limiting their custom will increase their profits.
Unless you are arguing that Christians will travel from all around the United States to specifically use that bakery?
I never said that, I said the only reason for calling themselves a christian bakery would be for a monetary gain in a country that is 3/4s christian.
Are all Christians localised in the area of that bakery?
I fail to see how it would magically increase their profit.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I see a few new lawsuit cases getting ready to go with the "mentally rape" angle now. That's pretty dang creative and heck of a sell pitch to pull it off
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Medium of Death wrote: Ustrello wrote: Medium of Death wrote: Ustrello wrote: Medium of Death wrote:How would selling to less people be a monetary benefit?
You are saying that it is ok for one religion to bend the rules and not the other.
That is the crux of your argument.
You do realize the states is a majority Christian nation, with nearly 76 percent being so correct? I really do not see how that is selling to less people that make up the majority, but hey maybe math is different over there.
You said it would be financially beneficial for them to not sell to gay people.
I'm not sure how limiting their custom will increase their profits.
Unless you are arguing that Christians will travel from all around the United States to specifically use that bakery?
I never said that, I said the only reason for calling themselves a christian bakery would be for a monetary gain in a country that is 3/4s christian.
Are all Christians localised in the area of that bakery?
I fail to see how it would magically increase their profit.
With 3/4s of the population being christian you can say yes a large amount are.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Frazzled wrote: jasper76 wrote:Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The owners broke an Oregon law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Don't want to go out of business? Try not breaking the law, for starters.
The law violated their religious beliefs. First Amendment usually trumps. Thats also why many statess that protect against this sort of abuse.
Interesting if this will be taken up and tested at a higher level.
And the mandate to provide public accomdations without discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. as laid out in the Civil Rights Act violates the religious beliefs of others...gladly they are now in a minority as time has gone by.
I don't see how this is any different. If this company really wants free reign to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, they should move the business to a state where its not illegal to do so.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Medium of Death wrote:
Are all Christians localised in the area of that bakery?
I fail to see how it would magically increase their profit.
Christians circulate their own phone books, so instead of being just another bakery in their town, they get to advertise straight to the christians in their town who will more than likely only shop & support businesses in their phone book.
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
 whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote:No, the Muslim bakery can refuse to serve pork any time they want to. The Christian baker can refuse to use (insert anti-Christian ingredient) in their cakes. If they had refused buttercream frosting to EVERYBODY, they would not have been sued.
Your argument is spurious.
Then explain to me why having laws coercing citizens to participate in contracts that should be voluntary is just?
Selling to a Lesbian couple, if you don't want to, is no different than selling to a black person, if you don't want to. Modern "Christians" love to hate this argument. They say "forcing me into a contract with a black person" is Good! Good! Good! but "forcing me into a contract with a gay person" is Bad! Bad! Bad! They they say "It's Different! Stop making that argument!"
So, is it morally wrong for the government to force you into a contract with a protected class, or isn't it?
34390
Post by: whembly
JimOnMars wrote: whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote:No, the Muslim bakery can refuse to serve pork any time they want to. The Christian baker can refuse to use (insert anti-Christian ingredient) in their cakes. If they had refused buttercream frosting to EVERYBODY, they would not have been sued.
Your argument is spurious.
Then explain to me why having laws coercing citizens to participate in contracts that should be voluntary is just?
Selling to a Lesbian couple, if you don't want to, is no different than selling to a black person, if you don't want to. Modern "Christians" love to hate this argument. They say "forcing me into a contract with a black person" is Good! Good! Good! but "forcing me into a contract with a gay person" is Bad! Bad! Bad! They they say "It's Different! Stop making that argument!"
So, is it morally wrong for the government to force you into a contract with a protected class, or isn't it?
Wait, is sextual orientation a protected class now? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem if this couple started a boycott compaign, call the local news or what have you...
But, this claim of "mental rape" in a civil case meant to bankrupt this family's business is nothing more than a vindictive response.
Furthermore, there's a distinction between serving a lesbian couple at a Bakery versus the baker making a wedding cake. That's what this disagreement is really boiling down to...
74210
Post by: Ustrello
whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote: whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote:No, the Muslim bakery can refuse to serve pork any time they want to. The Christian baker can refuse to use (insert anti-Christian ingredient) in their cakes. If they had refused buttercream frosting to EVERYBODY, they would not have been sued.
Your argument is spurious.
Then explain to me why having laws coercing citizens to participate in contracts that should be voluntary is just?
Selling to a Lesbian couple, if you don't want to, is no different than selling to a black person, if you don't want to. Modern "Christians" love to hate this argument. They say "forcing me into a contract with a black person" is Good! Good! Good! but "forcing me into a contract with a gay person" is Bad! Bad! Bad! They they say "It's Different! Stop making that argument!"
So, is it morally wrong for the government to force you into a contract with a protected class, or isn't it?
Wait, is sextual orientation a protected class now? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem if this couple started a boycott compaign, call the local news or what have you...
But, this claim of "mental rape" in a civil case meant to bankrupt this family's business is nothing more than a vindictive response.
Furthermore, there's a distinction between serving a lesbian couple at a Bakery versus the baker making a wedding cake. That's what this disagreement is really boiling down to...
It is in Oregon, which has been stated on every page of this thread so far.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
In Oregon it seems to be, yes.
80999
Post by: jasper76
whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote: whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote:No, the Muslim bakery can refuse to serve pork any time they want to. The Christian baker can refuse to use (insert anti-Christian ingredient) in their cakes. If they had refused buttercream frosting to EVERYBODY, they would not have been sued.
Your argument is spurious.
Then explain to me why having laws coercing citizens to participate in contracts that should be voluntary is just?
Selling to a Lesbian couple, if you don't want to, is no different than selling to a black person, if you don't want to. Modern "Christians" love to hate this argument. They say "forcing me into a contract with a black person" is Good! Good! Good! but "forcing me into a contract with a gay person" is Bad! Bad! Bad! They they say "It's Different! Stop making that argument!"
So, is it morally wrong for the government to force you into a contract with a protected class, or isn't it?
Wait, is sextual orientation a protected class now? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem if this couple started a boycott compaign, call the local news or what have you...
But, this claim of "mental rape" in a civil case meant to bankrupt this family's business is nothing more than a vindictive response.
Furthermore, there's a distinction between serving a lesbian couple at a Bakery versus the baker making a wedding cake. That's what this disagreement is really boiling down to...
So a couple bigots break the law and deny services to a lesbian couple, then brag about it on the web, and the lesbian couple dares to retaliate legally for compensation?
The nerve!
Or, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
34390
Post by: whembly
Ah... didn't see that.
EDIT: here's the statute:
OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 659A (Except where noted, laws apply when an employer has 1 or more employees)
Access to Employer-owned Housing
Credit Records or Credit History
Expunged Juvenile Record
Injured Workers (in companies with 6+ employees)
Lawful Use of Tobacco Products on off-duty hours
Leave to Donate Bone Marrow
Leave to Serve in the State Legislature (ORS 171.120-125)
Limits on Breathalyzer and Blood Alcohol Testing
Marital Status
Medical Release as a Condition of Continued Employment
Opposition to Health or Safety Conditions (ORS 654.062(5)(a))
Prohibition on Employer Requiring Medical Release unless Employer Pays Out-of-Pocket Costs (ORS 659A.306)
Prohibition on Polygraph Exams
Family Relationship
Right to File a Lawsuit, Testify in Criminal or Civil Proceedings or Report Criminal Activities
Right to Report Health Care Violations
Right to Testify at Employment Division Hearings
Right to Testify Before the State Legislature
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Victims of Domestic Violence, Harassment, Sexual Assault or Stalking, including Leave Provisions
Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote: whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote: whembly wrote: JimOnMars wrote:No, the Muslim bakery can refuse to serve pork any time they want to. The Christian baker can refuse to use (insert anti-Christian ingredient) in their cakes. If they had refused buttercream frosting to EVERYBODY, they would not have been sued.
Your argument is spurious.
Then explain to me why having laws coercing citizens to participate in contracts that should be voluntary is just?
Selling to a Lesbian couple, if you don't want to, is no different than selling to a black person, if you don't want to. Modern "Christians" love to hate this argument. They say "forcing me into a contract with a black person" is Good! Good! Good! but "forcing me into a contract with a gay person" is Bad! Bad! Bad! They they say "It's Different! Stop making that argument!"
So, is it morally wrong for the government to force you into a contract with a protected class, or isn't it?
Wait, is sextual orientation a protected class now? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem if this couple started a boycott compaign, call the local news or what have you...
But, this claim of "mental rape" in a civil case meant to bankrupt this family's business is nothing more than a vindictive response.
Furthermore, there's a distinction between serving a lesbian couple at a Bakery versus the baker making a wedding cake. That's what this disagreement is really boiling down to...
So a couple bigots break the law and deny services to a lesbian couple, then brag about it on the web, and the lesbian couple dares to retaliate legally for compensation?
The nerve!
Or, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Sill SJW-y vindictiveness. 
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Isn't Gender Identity a social construct? So therefore it would be a lifestyle choice.
80999
Post by: jasper76
@whembley: or the very kind of recourse this Oregon anti-discrimination law was intended to provide for those who have been discriminated against.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Kinda like how being gay is a choice right?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Gender identity I have no idea about. But Religion is definitively a lifestyle choice.
Are you advocating that Religion protection laws should be abolished?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
PhantomViper wrote:
Gender identity I have no idea about. But Religion is definitively a lifestyle choice.
Are you advocating that Religion protection laws should be abolished?
haha.
Delicious.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
PhantomViper wrote:
Gender identity I have no idea about. But Religion is definitively a lifestyle choice.
Are you advocating that Religion protection laws should be abolished?
That came under fire....Religion Protection Laws. Like two states re-ratified(?) it and all Hell broke loose on one. (ILL?)
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Usually, yes (but perfectly justified in my opinion), but in this particular case it didn't seem to be. All that the couple did was file a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, it was that agency that prosecuted the bakery to this conclusion.
Here seems to be the full judgement:
http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/BOLI-sweetcakes.pdf
5394
Post by: reds8n
A lot of people, myself included, don't think it is at all.
Perhaps they only order in Brides and Groom cake decorations as pairs. Perhaps they couldn't afford to have spares? (Sarcasm)
In which case it would be absolutely fine for them to say you can have a cake with a bride and groom on decoration on but I'm afraid for reasons of supply beyond our control we can't off this combo in any other pairing.
If you'd like to order one anyway, or perhaps have one without a pair of cake "people" on top then you're more than welcome.
Same as everyone else.
Also the fact that you can have a Muslim Butcher but not a Christian bakery shows the absurdity of this situation.
I don't think there is a Muslim Butchers. There would be Halal ones which, one assumes would be staffed by Muslims.
And if a gay couple came in and wanted to order 20 .. chicken breasts/whatever to be served at their gay wedding reception then under this same law the butchery would have to sell them the goods or face the same fines/punishments.
So one religious group should be allowed to circumvent some laws while another shouldn't?
Only in your strawman example.
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
whembly wrote:
Furthermore, there's a distinction between serving a lesbian couple at a Bakery versus the baker making a wedding cake. That's what this disagreement is really boiling down to...
Not a legally or morally distinct one. In one case, you are exchanging money for food. They other case is exchanging money for food and delivery.
Why is does adding on the delivery of the wedding cake somehow justify discrimination of a protected class?
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
reds8n wrote:
A lot of people, myself included, don't think it is at all.
Perhaps they only order in Brides and Groom cake decorations as pairs. Perhaps they couldn't afford to have spares? (Sarcasm)
In which case it would be absolutely fine for them to say you can have a cake with a bride and groom on decoration on but I'm afraid for reasons of supply beyond our control we can't off this combo in any other pairing.
If you'd like to order one anyway, or perhaps have one without a pair of cake "people" on top then you're more than welcome.
Same as everyone else.
Also the fact that you can have a Muslim Butcher but not a Christian bakery shows the absurdity of this situation.
I don't think there is a Muslim Butchers. There would be Halal ones which, one assumes would be staffed by Muslims.
And if a gay couple came in and wanted to order 20 .. chicken breasts/whatever to be served at their gay wedding reception then under this same law the butchery would have to sell them the goods or face the same fines/punishments.
So one religious group should be allowed to circumvent some laws while another shouldn't?
Only in your strawman example.
You are arguing that one set of religious preferences is above the law while another is not.
34390
Post by: whembly
JimOnMars wrote: whembly wrote:
Furthermore, there's a distinction between serving a lesbian couple at a Bakery versus the baker making a wedding cake. That's what this disagreement is really boiling down to...
Not a legally or morally distinct one. In one case, you are exchanging money for food. They other case is exchanging money for food and delivery.
Why is does adding on the delivery of the wedding cake somehow justify discrimination of a protected class?
It's not the delivery, but making the cake.... that's the baker's position.
Regardless, Oregon doesn't make that distinction.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Terms like 'rape' should be reserved for what they are. The distress this couple went through is not equivalent to a sexual assault.
That said, you can't just put people's contact details online to incite trouble for them. Many peoples details are in the public domain, but there's a difference between being an anonymous name in a phonebook and having someone put your details online to draw attention to you as a lesbian couple upsetting their nice Christian business, in order to create problems for them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
jasper76 wrote: Frazzled wrote: jasper76 wrote:Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The owners broke an Oregon law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Don't want to go out of business? Try not breaking the law, for starters.
The law violated their religious beliefs. First Amendment usually trumps. Thats also why many statess that protect against this sort of abuse.
Interesting if this will be taken up and tested at a higher level.
And the mandate to provide public accomdations without discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. as laid out in the Civil Rights Act violates the religious beliefs of others...gladly they are now in a minority as time has gone by.
I don't see how this is any different. If this company really wants free reign to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, they should move the business to a state where its not illegal to do so.
Please cite the federal law that makes homosexual weddings a protected class.
80999
Post by: jasper76
There is no federal law making sexual orientation a protected class. That is why we keep having srguements like this, where one side says the religious interest in discriminating against homosexuals is justifiable, and the other says it's not....if sexual orientation were a federally protected class, this would be a non-issue.
As it stands, this decision shouldn't be too controversial because sexual orientation actually is a protected class in Oregon, so the bakers actually broke a law, and were punished financially for breaking that law.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Stupid bakers - stupid lawsuit - Stupid judge. Too much stupid to care. Nobody is right when everybody is wrong.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Medium of Death wrote:
You are arguing that one set of religious preferences is above the law while another is not.
In what way am I doing this ?
221
Post by: Frazzled
sirlynchmob wrote: Medium of Death wrote:
Are all Christians localised in the area of that bakery?
I fail to see how it would magically increase their profit.
Christians circulate their own phone books, so instead of being just another bakery in their town, they get to advertise straight to the christians in their town who will more than likely only shop & support businesses in their phone book.
You're right. I don't know how many times I've consulted the Holy Phone Book.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Frazzled wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Medium of Death wrote:
Are all Christians localised in the area of that bakery?
I fail to see how it would magically increase their profit.
Christians circulate their own phone books, so instead of being just another bakery in their town, they get to advertise straight to the christians in their town who will more than likely only shop & support businesses in their phone book.
You're right. I don't know how many times I've consulted the Holy Phone Book.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
"Networking" I think he is trying to say
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
jasper76 wrote:There is no federal law making sexual orientation a protected class. That is why we keep having srguements like this, where one side says the religious interest in discriminating against homosexuals is justifiable, and the other says it's not....if sexual orientation were a federally protected class, this would be a non-issue.
As it stands, this decision shouldn't be too controversial because sexual orientation actually is a protected class in Oregon, so the bakers actually broke a law, and were punished financially for breaking that law.
Agreed - they broke the law - they should be punished - but the punishment is out of line with the crime.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
MrDwhitey wrote:Did you know that the Bakery posted the complaint, and the complainants home address to social media, causing them to be harassed? Which is probably a big part of the emotional distress issue?
Not as blatantly clear-cut as you want it, eh.
Wouldn't this open them up to criminal charges?
If this is true, then it justifies the lawsuit somewhat.
80999
Post by: jasper76
 Xenomancers wrote: jasper76 wrote:There is no federal law making sexual orientation a protected class. That is why we keep having srguements like this, where one side says the religious interest in discriminating against homosexuals is justifiable, and the other says it's not....if sexual orientation were a federally protected class, this would be a non-issue.
As it stands, this decision shouldn't be too controversial because sexual orientation actually is a protected class in Oregon, so the bakers actually broke a law, and were punished financially for breaking that law.
Agreed - they broke the law - they should be punished - but the punishment is out of line with the crime.
I do think that the lesbian couple was morally entitled to financial compensation for both (a) being discriminated against, and (b) for the public ridicule they were subjected to.
How much $$ would be proportianate to their crimes, I don't pretend to know.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Medium of Death wrote:
Are all Christians localised in the area of that bakery?
I fail to see how it would magically increase their profit.
Christians circulate their own phone books, so instead of being just another bakery in their town, they get to advertise straight to the christians in their town who will more than likely only shop & support businesses in their phone book.
You're right. I don't know how many times I've consulted the Holy Phone Book.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I'll edit myself here  so many fun comments I can put here.
Anyways, If you google them, you can find them:
http://www.christianbusinessphonebook.com/DCTX2014/files/assets/basic-html/page1.html
try it, it's fun. and being in it, can help with profits.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Howard A Treesong wrote:Terms like 'rape' should be reserved for what they are. The distress this couple went through is not equivalent to a sexual assault.
That said, you can't just put people's contact details online to incite trouble for them. Many peoples details are in the public domain, but there's a difference between being an anonymous name in a phonebook and having someone put your details online to draw attention to you as a lesbian couple upsetting their nice Christian business, in order to create problems for them.
Their details went online AFTER the suit, else the baker's wouldn't have had the information. Automatically Appended Next Post:
So what you really meant was SOME Christians put themselves in a phone registry that SOME Christians may even know about.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Frazzled, didn't you live in SoCal for a while?
There's a bunch of entirely independent bubbles for certain groups who only want to interact within their groups.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:Frazzled, didn't you live in SoCal for a while? There's a bunch of entirely independent bubbles for certain groups who only want to interact within their groups.
Yep. He said Christians. He did not say Church of the Screaming Monkey. He said Christians. OT but I hear the choir at the Church of the Screaming Monkey brings the house down when they get going. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote: Xenomancers wrote: jasper76 wrote:There is no federal law making sexual orientation a protected class. That is why we keep having srguements like this, where one side says the religious interest in discriminating against homosexuals is justifiable, and the other says it's not....if sexual orientation were a federally protected class, this would be a non-issue. As it stands, this decision shouldn't be too controversial because sexual orientation actually is a protected class in Oregon, so the bakers actually broke a law, and were punished financially for breaking that law.
Agreed - they broke the law - they should be punished - but the punishment is out of line with the crime.
I do think that the lesbian couple was morally entitled to financial compensation for both (a) being discriminated against, and (b) for the public ridicule they were subjected to. How much $$ would be proportianate to their crimes, I don't pretend to know.
So they were entitled to bankrupt the baker because the baker didn't want to make a wedding cake? I'd like to see other cases where such judgements were rendered.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So what you really meant was SOME Christians put themselves in a phone registry that SOME Christians may even know about.
I don't know why you're making a issue of this. It was asked how being a christian bakery can help with profits. This is one way it can. Those "some christians" that do know about it, very likely only do business with those listed in it.
Just because you might not be christian enough to receive one, or know about one, is no reason to try and make it some sort of counterpoint.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I think you bolo'ed the delivery on your post there Lynch. I knew what you were heading for but that's a tangle of fishing hooks we do not need to go down. Being it would revolve around religious, ethnicity, and of "like minded" groups.
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the federal law that makes homosexual weddings a protected class.
No global federal law yet, largely because of certain legislators in the U.S. house of representatives, who owe their majority to gerrymandering.
Once they are purged, the law will be passed.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Frazzled wrote:
jasper76 wrote: Xenomancers wrote: jasper76 wrote:There is no federal law making sexual orientation a protected class. That is why we keep having srguements like this, where one side says the religious interest in discriminating against homosexuals is justifiable, and the other says it's not....if sexual orientation were a federally protected class, this would be a non-issue.
As it stands, this decision shouldn't be too controversial because sexual orientation actually is a protected class in Oregon, so the bakers actually broke a law, and were punished financially for breaking that law.
Agreed - they broke the law - they should be punished - but the punishment is out of line with the crime.
I do think that the lesbian couple was morally entitled to financial compensation for both (a) being discriminated against, and (b) for the public ridicule they were subjected to.
How much $$ would be proportianate to their crimes, I don't pretend to know.
So they were entitled to bankrupt the baker because the baker didn't want to make a wedding cake? I'd like to see other cases where such judgements were rendered.
Like I said, I don't know what a proportianate punishment should be. The judge had one idea, I don't know if they amount he came up with was legally justified or off the cuff.
I do think that discrimination is no small crime, and the consequences for it should be significant enough to act as a deterrent.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The economic equivalent of a death sentence is one hell of a deterrent.
Defendants should wait until final judgement then file bankruptcy. Its what I would recommend.
Then get out of that town.
34390
Post by: whembly
Yup. Bankruptcy would likely happen this case... whereas the plantif would get little, if at all, of the judgement money.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Frazzled wrote:The economic equivalent of a death sentence is one hell of a deterrent.
Defendants should wait until final judgement then file bankruptcy. Its what I would recommend.
Then get out of that town.
May I return the question to you? What should have happened to this business as a result of them breaking Oregon law and discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
 Brennonjw wrote:wow. the people who were asked to make the cake said no due to their beliefs, and got sued, so does that mean no longer expressing beliefs in the US? Not that I agree with them, but to sue for the bullcrap that the lesbian couple did is just beyond scum.
If you offer a service to the public it has to be offered to the public, not the particular bits of the public that have the correct skin colour, age and sexual orientation that you happen to like.
|
|
