Lesbian couple bankrupts Christian family over religious disagreement.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

Admin judge. Case is here.

http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/BOLI-sweetcakes.pdf

**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.

**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.

**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.

**Hanskrampf**

While I feel that the owners deserve punishment for discrimination, sueing them into bankrupcy is also fethed up.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**streamdragon**

I think the biggest problem is that you're using Breitbart for news.

**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.

**Hulksmash**

Marie Antionette would be so disappointed....

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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?

**MrDwhitey**

So you agree both were wrong then? Ok.

**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.

**cincydooley**

MrDwhitey wrote:
So you agree both were wrong then? Ok.

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.

**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."

**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".

**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?

**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.

**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.