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

[David1967]

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.

I disagree. Fines for crimes where people are actually hurt are not so extreme. That kind of money involved in such as this is beyond ridiculous. Lawyers and the offended? KA- CHING! Nothing more.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

The silly bakers didn't have to destroy their own lives by insisting that their religious feelings gave them the right to ignore established law. No one did this to them... they did it to themselves.

At least you didn't try and defend your pathetic comparisons between a Jewish or Muslim restaurant and this bakery. There may be hope for you after all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

That's why I can't stand PC and SJW liberalism in this respect. It's a dystopia agenda Incorporated within the legal system today.

Anyone now who's offended, now can take a crack at the lawyer lottery because their feelings got hurt.

In fairness, I do think they should get some compensation. It was wrong for the bakery as a business serving the General Public to refuse. Maybe 10 or 20 thousand would have been an appropriate award. That would be in the realm of sensibility yet high enough not to put people out of business and employees losing their jobs.

Discrimination based on sex religion or ethnicity is wrong for a business openly serving the General Public. Private is another matter.

But not this insane amount of money. And people wonder why businesses flee the area, and prices at stores are sky high.

It's not like this couple was beaten and bruised physically for who they were. They were just refused a service baking them a cake. That's it.

I'm guessing these people running the store will appeal. They have that right.

 

[74x12]

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!

Imagine if Christians forced a gay baker to make a cake! The stupid outrage. Disgusting is to good of a word for this country when we're allowing this insanity to go on. It's not about straight couples only. That's bullcrap. It's about freedom of religion as every one knows. This nation has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. Fines for crimes where people are actually hurt are not so extreme. That kind of money involved in such as this is beyond ridiculous. Lawyers and the offended? KA- CHING! Nothing more.

How were they harmed? Aside from their own bad acts after the fact?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Imagine if Christians forced a gay baker to make a cake! The stupid outrage. Disgusting is to good of a word for this country when we're allowing this insanity to go on. It's not about straight couples only. That's bullcrap. It's about freedom of religion as every one knows. This nation has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

If one does not want to serve the public then one should not open up a business where one must serve the public. It was their choice. If they had "moral objections" then they should not have opened a public business. When you open a public business you can't say "no blacks". You can't say "no Chinese". And you can't say "no homosexuals". All of those people and more are part of the public.

 

[Skwim]

Imagine if Christians forced a gay baker to make a cake! The stupid outrage. Disgusting is to good of a word for this country when we're allowing this insanity to go on. It's not about straight couples only. That's bullcrap. It's about freedom of religion as every one knows. This nation has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

Looks like the law of the land disagrees with you. It isn't "about freedom of religion as every one knows." That tell you anything, like you're wrong?

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Imagine if Christians forced a gay baker to make a cake! The stupid outrage. Disgusting is to good of a word for this country when we're allowing this insanity to go on. It's not about straight couples only. That's bullcrap. It's about freedom of religion as every one knows. This nation has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

That's what makes things so tough. There are two sides to every coin, and more often than not, both sides has some valid points and invalid points in the matter. Too bad this had to go to court rather than having it resolved out of court.

 

[74x12]

If one does not want to serve the public then one should not open up a business where one must serve the public. It was their choice. If they had "moral objections" then they should not have opened a public business. When you open a public business you can't say "no blacks". You can't say "no Chinese". And you can't say "no homosexuals". All of those people and more are part of the public.

Nonsense. What's next? Are Christians going to be forced to make cakes for the swinger's club? The point of freedom is that we aren't forced to do anything. If we are forced to serve someone then we're forced labor. AKA slavery. I'm not buying the bullcrap hurt feelings "right". That isn't a right. No one has a right to not have their feelings hurt. That's stupid. I can't believe how stupid this country has become.

What if I want a cake that quotes Deut 22:5 from a transexual baker? It's my right to have it according to people like you. I now have the "right" to have a cake from your bakery. I don't give crap who you are or what you believe I am going to have my cake from you.

 

[74x12]

Looks like the law of the land disagrees with you. It isn't "about freedom of religion as every one knows." That tell you anything, like you're wrong?

.

The law of the land is the constitution including the bill of rights which guarantees the freedom of religion and this law of yours violates the highest law of the land. It's invalid.

 

[74x12]

If one does not want to serve the public then one should not open up a business where one must serve the public. It was their choice. If they had "moral objections" then they should not have opened a public business. When you open a public business you can't say "no blacks". You can't say "no Chinese". And you can't say "no homosexuals". All of those people and more are part of the public.

They said they don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. They did not say no homosexuals. That's a complete falsehood.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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!

Many rights are two way streets and not absolute one side or another In this case there are free market rights and religious rights of both parties. Religious rights are not second class rights and perhaps it would have been wiser if the court added qualifications like a need to balance religious rights of workers and owners and personal free market liberties

Religious rights have clarity in the constitution and should not be dismissed. All people have a variety of rights and one should not be dismissed by disagreeable others

 

[whirlingmerc]

135,000 ???
Woah!

135,000.00 is some cake! thats a bit more than double indemnity

 

[whirlingmerc]

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.

Actually they already have... it's just that the left has no interest in picking on them (at the moment and that can change with a flick of a fickle interest) The high road would have been to come to a better agreement of how to accommodate both religious rights and personal rights saying there is no place for religious rights in the market place or public square is a mistake

 

[Skwim]

The law of the land is the constitution including the bill of rights which guarantees the freedom of religion and this law of yours violates the highest law of the land. It's invalid.

And do you know why we even have state supreme courts and a SCOTUS? I'll give you an hour or so to look it up.

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

And do you know why we even have state supreme courts and a SCOTUS? I'll give you an hour or so to look it up.

.

Court decisions can be overturned by another court alter or clarified... well... unless its God delivering the decision then it's final with no appeal

 

[Skwim]

Many rights are two way streets and not absolute one side or another In this case there are free market rights and religious rights of both parties. Religious rights are not second class rights and perhaps it would have been wiser if the court added qualifications like a need to balance religious rights of workers and owners and personal free market liberties

Perhaps. In any case it could well be in the 62-page opinion released Thursday.

Religious rights have clarity in the constitution and should not be dismissed. All people have a variety of rights and one should not be dismissed by disagreeable others

Obviously the court decided religious rights didn't take precedence over one's right not to be discriminated against.

.

 

[Skwim]

Court decisions can be overturned by another court alter or clarified...

Yup. Sometimes they can and sometimes they can't.

,

 

[Jesster]

They said they don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding. They did not say no homosexuals. That's a complete falsehood.

So can they refuse a cake for an interracial wedding if that goes against their beliefs?

 

[Willamena]

I'd applaud this but really? 135 grand? That's not just a little overboard, that's a whole ocean off ship.

It's barely a half year's expenses for a couple of two.