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

[David1967]

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.

I believe it a valid comparison. You do not. Differing opinion, nothing more. No need to resort to insults.

 

[BSM1]

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.

I have owned an electronic security business for over 30 years. I have been asked to secure houses where obviously drugs are being sold (one guy even called me and told me he wanted his marijuana field protected). Even though I would have had no legal problem in taking the job, I refused to do the work for moral reasons. What if these people, who came in all ethnicities, pressed the issue (without exposing the illegal drug trade, of course) to the authorities accusing me of discrimination? Should I have been forced to cater to these folks?

 

[74x12]

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

It becomes a matter of personal conscious. That's what freedom of religion is all about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have owned an electronic security business for over 30 years. I have been asked to secure houses where obviously drugs are being sold (one guy even called me and told me he wanted his marijuana field protected). Even though I would have had no legal problem in taking the job, I refused to do the work for moral reasons. What if these people, who came in all ethnicities, pressed the issue (without exposing the illegal drug trade, of course) to the authorities accusing me of discrimination? Should I have been forced to cater to these folks?

You could always state your reasons for rejecting the work, but that problem would probably never arise. Also you could be charged as an accomplice if someone told you what he was protecting. You could not claim innocence after that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It becomes a matter of personal conscious. That's what freedom of religion is all about.

Sorry, not good enough. One could use the same excuse to not make a cake for a biracial wedding. If your unsupported beliefs will keep you from selling a cake to someone that is doing nothing wrong then you should not be in that business.

 

[Grandliseur]

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!

To have to pay that kind of money for simply standing on personal principles, when no physical hurt was done - is immoral. Even a fine of a $1000 would have made the point and been excessive.

There is no justice; she is indeed blind.

Being tolerant towards others beliefs is a personal choice when it offends all that a person believes in. I sure as hell don't think I need to be tolerant with people who support abortions, murder. At the same time, I cannot go around hurting those who disagree, but I can say, "No" - where it affects me. Thus, we have the law and public offices where the law has to be observed in what has been decided upon, and we have private businesses where private people practice their religious freedom and earn their own keep.

This has been blown up out of all proportions to serve the immoral and amoral section of society. What you do inside your 4 walls is your problem to a large degree, it is when people take those practices outside that other people get a choice on how to react to their excesses.

 

[BSM1]

You could always state your reasons for rejecting the work, but that problem would probably never arise. Also you could be charged as an accomplice if someone told you what he was protecting. You could not claim innocence after that.

Wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong.

Setting up a security system for what you knew to be an illegal grow operation would have qualified as aiding and abetting. You could no longer claim ignorance in good consciousness. And if recorded you could have been the victim of a sting operation.

 

[leibowde84]

Didn't say that.

Yes you did, actually.

I said:
"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"

So, why would you be alright with discrimination against homosexuals but not discrimination against black people?

 

[leibowde84]

I have owned an electronic security business for over 30 years. I have been asked to secure houses where obviously drugs are being sold (one guy even called me and told me he wanted his marijuana field protected). Even though I would have had no legal problem in taking the job, I refused to do the work for moral reasons. What if these people, who came in all ethnicities, pressed the issue (without exposing the illegal drug trade, of course) to the authorities accusing me of discrimination? Should I have been forced to cater to these folks?

It isn't illegal to deny service due to illegal activities taking place at the property where work would be performed. Discrimination against illegal activity CANNOT be illegal, no matter what. And, cannabis is illegal federally (federal law trumps state law every time). So, it would be impossible for you to be liable in any way.

And, there is no way that a denied customer growing cannabis on his property would take legal action against you for refusing service, so that is an absurd hypothetical. Even if they leave out your reasoning for refusal of service, you would be free to bring it up. So, that isn't even an issue.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree. I never suggested that the system as a whole was alright in this respect. I just think that this specific instance was just. The owner of the business should have known better, and he pushed it all the way to the court of appeals. Think about how much attorney's fees were for the couple. And, they did us all a favor. Discrimination based on sexual orientation should never be accepted, no matter the reasoning.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

So tired of this PRATT

Just get the damn cake somewhere else.

Yeah! What's wrong with the back of the bus?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

News flash. Racism in this country was based on religious beliefs as well. THey felt that keeping black people subservient or "less-than" whites was God's will.

 

[David1967]

So tired of this PRATTYeah! What's wrong with the back of the bus?

Yeah your right. I'm tired of this "PRATT" too. Comparing refusal to bake a cake to the horror of racism? Please.

 

[Mindmaster]

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!

That award is nuts, but so are people not selling cakes to people because they're gay.

There isn't a war on Christianity, there are Christians who are at war with the idea that someone else doesn't share their beliefs and chooses to live differently. Thus, they are only satisfied if you are living as a Christian by proxy, so **** 'em. They're so out of touch with the actual teachings of Jesus that it astounds me....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have owned an electronic security business for over 30 years. I have been asked to secure houses where obviously drugs are being sold (one guy even called me and told me he wanted his marijuana field protected). Even though I would have had no legal problem in taking the job, I refused to do the work for moral reasons. What if these people, who came in all ethnicities, pressed the issue (without exposing the illegal drug trade, of course) to the authorities accusing me of discrimination? Should I have been forced to cater to these folks?

There is a big difference between discriminating against a class of people just because they exist and declining work that would aid the business of illegal substances.

This has been blown up out of all proportions to serve the immoral and amoral section of society. What you do inside your 4 walls is your problem to a large degree, it is when people take those practices outside that other people get a choice on how to react to their excesses.

Yup. It's high time we move beyond the notion of marriage and quit making such a big deal out of it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yeah your right. I'm tired of this "PRATT" too. Comparing refusal to bake a cake to the horror of racism? Please.

If it were JUST about whether a cake were baked or not, you'd have a point. But homophobic bigotry manifests in all the ways racist bigotry does, up to and including lynchings. Thus your attempted handwave fails.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There is a big difference between discriminating against a class of people just because they exist and declining work that would aid the business of illegal substances.

Of course. But since there is no logical defence for homophobic bigotry, those on the anti-side are forced to resort to illogical comparisons. Assuming they persist with the conceit that this is a logical position.

 

[InChrist]

News flash. Racism in this country was based on religious beliefs as well. THey felt that keeping black people subservient or "less-than" whites was God's will.

Racism may have been based on religious beliefs by those who had twisted beliefs or twisted the scriptures, but by no means were all racists thoughts based in religion, nor were all who practiced religion racists. Many devout Christians were involved in fighting against slavery and racism. Still, this does not change the fact that one's skin color or race is not a moral behavior.

 

[sayak83]

That award is nuts, but so are people not selling cakes to people because they're gay.

There isn't a war on Christianity, there are Christians who are at war with the idea that someone else doesn't share their beliefs and chooses to live differently. Thus, they are only satisfied if you are living as a Christian by proxy, so **** 'em. They're so out of touch with the actual teachings of Jesus that it astounds me....

You mean this actual teaching? (Matthew 10)

13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

This seems pretty straightforwardly saying to have nothing to do with people who refuse to hear and accept Jesus. Do not see much friendly acceptance here.