Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Couple A Wedding Cake WILL Have To Pay $135,000

[Augustus]

It's important to stop religious business owners from allowing their religious beliefs to get in the way of their duty to fellow citizens. This appeals court sent a very strong message. You cannot use your religious beliefs as reasoning for discrimination. If you do, you will be severely harmed financially and lose your business.

The bakery had many opportunities to apologize and do what was right. They refused at every opportunity.

A $2000 fine would do that just as well. Can be escalated for repeated offences.

Whimsical damage values have no place in a developed legal system. It just encourages people to file spurious lawsuits and raises costs and insurance premiums for many things and consumes government resources which costs everybody.

To non-Americans your system of damages seems ludicrous as they are exponentially higher than any other developed country. Does it not bother you that you pay handsomely for this culture?

 

[metis]

The message from the court: "You play, you pay".

To not do so would be going back to the "good old days" whereas restaurants used not feed those "blackies" who showed up.

 

[Vee]

If I went into a shop and someone refused to sell me something because I'm a Christian, maybe I would be hurt, maybe I would feel offended and tell my friends and family about that unpleasant event. But I wouldn't want to drag the owner's reputation through the mud in a public scandal and I certainly wouldn't want to bankrupt them. There are reasonable measures to each situation.

 

[Father Heathen]

And the fans have a right to protest with their pocket books.

That's okay, they still have NASCAR and WWE. They'll no longer have to worry about being butthurt over meanie athletes showing disregard for their flag idolatry and fetishism.

 

[Stanyon]

The message from the court: "You play, you pay".

To not do so would be going back to the "good old days" whereas restaurants used not feed those "blackies" who showed up.

Would you feel the same if someone went to a Jewish bakery and demanded a birthday cake for Hitler, then sued them if they refused? It's a slippery slope and the judgement excessive.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

This is very strange because everyone wants church and state separated. So why should the government get involved in a matter that involveds someone's religious beliefs? If this baker really had religious beliefs against homosexual people why should the government say he must violate his religion or pay a fine? Should a Jewish restaurant be forced to serve pork? Should an atheist be forced to put up Christmas decorations? What is the difference and where do we draw the line?

 

[Father Heathen]

If I went into a shop and someone refused to sell me something because I'm a Christian, maybe I would be hurt, maybe I would feel offended and tell my friends and family about that unpleasant event. But I wouldn't want to drag the owner's reputation through the mud in a public scandal and I certainly wouldn't want to bankrupt them. There are reasonable measures to each situation.

Perhaps you wouldn't, but I guarantee a lot of conservative Christians would very well scream persecution and seek vengeance if it were done to them.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think it's a pretty good prediction that the bakeshop owners will have their legal fees pro bono or paid for by concerned Christians donating money to support them, and whatever damages they have to pay paid by further generous donations.

Of course, this ruling is also not the last word; there was the original trial, this is the appeals court ruling, and the next stop would be the state supreme court (if there isn't another level of appeals in between), and finally, if they don't win there in the OSC, they can always try to appeal again to the US Supreme Court.

 

[BSM1]

That's okay, they still have NASCAR and WWE. They'll no longer have to worry about being butthurt over meanie athletes showing disregard for their flag idolatry and fetishism.

Just because you have the right to protest any real or perceive social wrong doesn't mean everyone else has to accept your position without question.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just because you have the right to protest any real or perceive social wrong doesn't mean everyone else has to accept your position without question.

And your point is?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Court rules Oregon bakers who refused to make lesbian couple a wedding cake WILL have to pay them $135,000 in damages

Owners of the since-closed Gresham bakery Aaron and Melissa Klein had refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer
An appellate court Thursday upheld a penalty against the bakery owners and they will now have to pay the lesbian couple $135,000
Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer praised the ruling saying: 'Oregon will not allow a 'Straight Couples Only' sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores'

An appellate court Thursday upheld a penalty against Oregon bakery owners who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding almost five years ago.

The owners of the since-closed Gresham bakery - Aaron and Melissa Klein - argued that state Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian violated state and federal laws by forcing them to pay emotional-distress damages of $135,000 to the lesbian couple Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

Their lawyers said Avakian and the state Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins' rights as artists to free speech, their rights to religious freedom and their rights as defendants to a due process.

But the Oregon Court of Appeals sided with the state Thursday, saying the Kleins failed to show the state targeted them for their religious beliefs.

The judges also found public statements made by Avakian before deciding the case did not establish a lack of impartiality.

'Today's ruling sends a strong signal that Oregon remains open to all,' Avakian said after the 62-page opinion was released Thursday.

The decision comes weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the high-profile case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
source​

I can only say, good enough for them!

Let's just hope that the current SCOTUS makes a similar sane ruling.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Next up, Jewish and Muslim restaurants that refuse to serve pork, and Mosques and churches that refuse to do gay weddings. Or the Christian or Muslim convenience store that refuses to sell alcoholic beverages. How far are litigious people willing to push this type of thing. Just get the damn cake somewhere else.

ROFL... as if your examples are equivalent to the baker. If those Jewish and Muslim restaurants currently serve pork to SOME customers, then yes, they would have to be willing to sell pork to ALL customers. But if they don't have pork on their menu, they're not discriminating against anyone by refusing to add it to their menu for you or anyone else.

This baker regularly sold wedding cakes to SOME customers, which means by law they must be willing to sell those wedding cakes to ALL customers. Why is such a simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

 

[columbus]

If I went into a shop and someone refused to sell me something because I'm a Christian, maybe I would be hurt, maybe I would feel offended and tell my friends and family about that unpleasant event. But I wouldn't want to drag the owner's reputation through the mud in a public scandal and I certainly wouldn't want to bankrupt them. There are reasonable measures to each situation.

I don't Facebook or anything like that, RF is as close as I come. But nearly everybody I know does.
If I honestly thought that I was being discriminated against because I am gay, I would tell everyone I know and let social media work it's magic. Nowadays, so many straight people are anti-bigotry SJWs I would expect sufficient repercussions to soothe me. The government needn't get involved at all, much less get the power.
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

Didn't say that.

leibowde84 said: "Why should we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals simply because of their personal beliefs. Why would we allow people to discriminate against homosexuals but not black people? Or are you OK with business owners discriminating as they see fit?"

You said: Absolutely

leibowden84 said: "So, you think the rules saying that black people could not sit at certain counters or be served in certain restaurants should have been legally protected?"

According to the above exchange that's exactly what you said.

 

[David1967]

Let's just hope that the current SCOTUS makes a similar sane ruling.

$135000 is not sane. The punishment certainly doesn't fit the crime.

 

[Twilight Hue]

135,000 ???
Woah!

Lawyers run amok. Litigious Society. Greed.

Lawyer lottery winner!

 

[David1967]

ROFL... as if your examples are equivalent to the baker. If those Jewish and Muslim restaurants currently serve pork to SOME customers, then yes, they would have to be willing to sell pork to ALL customers. But if they don't have pork on their menu, they're not discriminating against anyone by refusing to add it to their menu for you or anyone else.

This baker regularly sold wedding cakes to SOME customers, which means by law they must be willing to sell those wedding cakes to ALL customers. Why is such a simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

And its not about the gay wedding cake thing. Its about someone willing to destroy the life of someone and their family simply because they were offended. That is just wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

$135000 is not sane. The punishment certainly doesn't fit the crime.

I have to take back my statement where I agreed with this. Actually the punishment in this case may not have been enough. They received over $515,000 from supporters :

Oregon Court: Bigoted Christian Bakers Must Pay $135,000 Fine to Lesbian Couple

They claim the money has been spent on legal fees, but that is their fault. The money for the fine, I have not found where that came from yet, has been locked in an escrow account pending appeals:


Appeals court upholds fine against Christian bakers who refused to make same-sex wedding cake

This was not an economic hardship for the bakers, they were obviously in the wrong, it is time to pay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's a pretty good prediction that the bakeshop owners will have their legal fees pro bono or paid for by concerned Christians donating money to support them, and whatever damages they have to pay paid by further generous donations.

Of course, this ruling is also not the last word; there was the original trial, this is the appeals court ruling, and the next stop would be the state supreme court (if there isn't another level of appeals in between), and finally, if they don't win there in the OSC, they can always try to appeal again to the US Supreme Court.

That already happened. In my previous post you can read how they received over a half million dollars in donations. If they are hurting financially at all it is not the fault of this lawsuit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And its not about the gay wedding cake thing. Its about someone willing to destroy the life of someone and their family simply because they were offended. That is just wrong.

But that is not the case here. Their life has not been destroyed by this decision.