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.

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.

 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.

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.

Stupid bakers - stupid lawsuit - Stupid judge. Too much stupid to care. Nobody is right when everybody is wrong.

 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 ?

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?

 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

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

So what you really meant was SOME Christians put themselves in a phone registry that SOME Christians may even know about.

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.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

Yup. Bankruptcy would likely happen this case... whereas the plantif would get little, if at all, of the judgement money.

 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?

 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.