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

[Jeremiah Ames]

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

I was wondering why it wasn’t higher.
The idiot baker was grandstanding to send a religious message to the world.
It seems prudent that the state send a significant message back.

Anyway, if the baker had actually read the Bible ahead of time, he would have offered to make two cakes. He would still be in business and not be out $135000.

 

[74x12]

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

People should be able to refuse service for any reason; especially religious. The only limit should be in life threatening situations or something like that. Then I can see forcing service.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

For the record, I have no problem with gay people. Let people live as they see fit. No problem. My problem is with a few people who are eager and willing to completely ruin anothers life, simply because they believe that to bake a cake for a gay wedding violates their religious belief.

It’s actually the religious zealots who are out to ruin lives. Sometimes their own lives get caught up in the process.

 

[Revoltingest]

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!

Government gone wild, eh.
The 'justice' system is sort of an inverse lottery.

I'd like to see government broaden that policy.....
Give my employees $135,000 in damages every time some bigoted tenant calls'm "n*gg*r".

 

[Jesster]

People should be able to refuse service for any reason; especially religious. The only limit should be in life threatening situations or something like that. Then I can see forcing service.

The civil rights act of 1964 disagrees with you. I'm glad you aren't making the laws here.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can survive without cake. It is not a necessity.

Au contraire!
Gay cakes are essential to life.
$135,000 was a slap on the wrist.
The fine should've been over $1,000,000.
They should've been forced out of business & made destitute for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps prison time would force them to be tolerant.

 

[74x12]

The civil rights act of 1964 disagrees with you. I'm glad you aren't making the laws here.

freedom is more important.

 

[Jesster]

freedom is more important.

To what limit? I tend not to favor anarchy.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

freedom is more important.

Wow, so scary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

As long as your message is not personally threatening you should be able to get anything on it that you want. Once again, when someone opens a public business one must deal with the public. That is why you cannot have a lunch counter that says "No blacks." And it is not slavery. They were not forced to open a public business. That was their choice. But once you open a public business you limit your personal rights in certain aspects. This was one of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Wrong again. They have no say in how the products that they sell are used.

They made a cake. What it is used for is not their concern. As long as they were not using it in some sort of illegal activity. I can't see them going into a bank with a cake and demanding that they hand over the money.

 

[David1967]

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.

My opinion different than yours so you attack personally. Classy.

 

[David1967]

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.

Ridiculous isn't it.

 

[74x12]

Wrong again. They have no say in how the products that they sell are used.

They made a cake. What it is used for is not their concern. As long as they were not using it in some sort of illegal activity. I can't see them going into a bank with a cake and demanding that they hand over the money.

Yeah it is their business if the cake is openly supportive of the homosexual lifestyle. If they just wanted a generic plain wedding cake they could probably have that for all I know.

 

[Jesster]

Yeah it is their business if the cake is openly supportive of the homosexual lifestyle. If they just wanted a generic plain wedding cake they could probably have that for all I know.

Apparently not. The bakers in these cases wouldn't even allow the customers that much. In this case, they only denied the cake sale when they found out it was for a gay wedding. It didn't matter what the cake looked like to the baker.

 

[QuestioningMind]

My opinion different than yours so you attack personally. Classy.

As I demonstrated in my post, your 'opinion' that your restaurant example and the baker are equivalent is just plain wrong. So sorry if it hurts your feelings to have this pointed out to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah it is their business if the cake is openly supportive of the homosexual lifestyle. If they just wanted a generic plain wedding cake they could probably have that for all I know.

Why is it their business? A simple blanket statement is not good enough.

 

[InChrist]

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?

Not the same at all. Those who refuse to make a cake for a homosexual wedding consider it a moral issue. One's skin color is not.

 

[BSM1]

Au contraire!
Gay cakes are essential to life.
$135,000 was a slap on the wrist.
The fine should've been over $1,000,000.
They should've been forced out of business & made destitute for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps prison time would force them to be tolerant.

Gay Cakes! Well, I guess what pastries do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's business.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not the same at all. Those who refuse to make a cake for a homosexual wedding consider it a moral issue. One's skin color is not.

Sorry, but it isn't. Just because one does not like a group it does not make it a moral issue. They are not being forced into any sort of homosexual act. Once again, if you can think of a group that you cannot serve then one should not open a public business.