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**

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.

**whembly**

Wow Oregon... way to defend freedom. o.O

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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...

**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.

**PhantomViper**

whembly wrote:

Wait, is sextual orientation a protected class now?

In Oregon it seems to be, yes.

**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.

**whembly**

PhantomViper wrote:
whembly wrote:

Wait, is sextual orientation a protected class now?

In Oregon it seems to be, yes.

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.

**Medium of Death**

Isn't Gender Identity a social construct? So therefore it would be a lifestyle choice.

**whembly**

Medium of Death wrote:
Isn't Gender Identity a social construct? So therefore it would be a lifestyle choice.

Does it really matter?

**jasper76**

@whembley: or the very kind of recourse this Oregon anti-discrimination law was intended to provide for those who have been discriminated against.

**Ustrello**

Medium of Death wrote:
Isn't Gender Identity a social construct? So therefore it would be a lifestyle choice.

Kinda like how being gay is a choice right?

**PhantomViper**

Medium of Death wrote:
Isn't Gender Identity a social construct? So therefore it would be a lifestyle choice.

Gender identity I have no idea about. But Religion is definitively a lifestyle choice.

Are you advocating that Religion protection laws should be abolished?

**BlaxicanX**

PhantomViper wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
Isn't Gender Identity a social construct? So therefore it would be a lifestyle choice.

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.

**Jihadin**

PhantomViper wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
Isn't Gender Identity a social construct? So therefore it would be a lifestyle choice.

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?)

**PhantomViper**

whembly wrote:

Sill SJW-y vindictiveness.

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

**reds8n**

Medium of Death wrote:

It's a lot closer than the race comparison.

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.

**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?

**Medium of Death**

reds8n wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

It's a lot closer than the race comparison.

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.

**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.