"Religious refusal to bake for a gay wedding may cost bakery $135,000"

[columbus]

Don't believe there is; however, FWIW . . .

"GoFundMe says its policy doesn’t allow accounts that raise money 'in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.' ”
source​

So, Shad's statement was flat out wrong. And GoFundMe discrimates on the basis of religion.
Or maybe GFM considers getting another cake baker a heinous crime?
I'm just not buying any of what I see as crap. A couple of dykes think having to buy a cake from a gay friendly business is worth $150K(US, not those Canuck dollars)in damages for "emotional distress"?
Nope. I don't want that much government.
Tom

 

[columbus]

No GoFundMe is against providing a service in which it is not obligated to support people that have broken the law.

Do they decide who has broken the law? Or do they just go on what twitter says?
Tom

 

[Skwim]

So, Shad's statement was flat out wrong.

As to the baker breaking the law by setting up a donation drive to pay for their fees, yes.

And GoFundMe discrimates on the basis of religion.

Not that I'm aware of. Why would you say so?

I'm just not buying any of what I see as crap.

Then I suggest you get glasses (just a suggestion).

A couple of dykes think having to buy a cake from a gay friendly business is worth $150K(US, not those Canuck dollars)in damages for "emotional distress"?
Nope. I don't want that much government.

But you've got it. So, I guess you can either accept it, do something about it, or whine about it.

What's your pleasure?

 

[Shad]

So, Shad's statement was flat out wrong. And GoFundMe discrimates on the basis of religion.

The GoFundMe part yes. I admit that.

Or maybe GFM considers getting another cake baker a heinous crime?

Unless there is a state law against discrimination of criminals it is within their right to do so. Here such discrimination is becoming illegal except for very serious crimes which the bakery has not done.

I'm just not buying any of what I see as crap. A couple of dykes think having to buy a cake from a gay friendly business is worth $150K(US, not those Canuck dollars)in damages for "emotional distress"?
Nope. I don't want that much government.
Tom

The pay out is extreme, I never said it was acceptable or deserved. Those types of settlement are unheard of up here. However the bakery still broke the law. I think a part of the reason why the fine was so high was to set an example and to crush a civil rights conflict before it begins to spread further.

 

[columbus]

As to the baker breaking the law by setting up a donation drive to pay for their fees, yes.

Where, exactly, is the law against setting up a donation drive?
Tom

 

[Breathe]

They broke a law that applies to business that are open to the public, simply as that.

But businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone.

Churches do not fall under public business laws so there is no issue.

Irrelevant.

You are fear mongering over a strawman issue.

Lying and distortion.
Stop being silly.

 

[Skwim]

But businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone.

Depends on the reason.

 

[atpollard]

Anyone can accuse anyone else of doing anything. However, the burden of proof is theirs, not yours to prove it wasn't. The burden does not shift to the defendant at all. This is basic law 101.

Because our court's, in interpreting of the Constitution (either the US Constitution or a state's constitution, or both), have decided that some forms of discrimination don't merit protection. They violate some part of the Constitution.

Have you been sued?
I only ask because the $150,000 in defense fees for my civil suit before getting to trial sure felt different than that.
I did not take Basic Law 101, but I am pretty sure that the burden of proof is different in a civil suit and I think that many 'anti-discrimination' laws impose a lower standard of proof than other laws ... as I understood it the reason was to offset the difficulty in proving certain things (like what someone was thinking).

[This is too political for my tastes ... I think that I will stick to something safer ... like Religion. ]

 

[Skwim]

Where, exactly, is the law against setting up a donation drive?
Tom

There isn't any, which is why I said "yes" to your statement "So, Shad's statement was flat out wrong." In effect: "Yes, Shad's statement was flat out wrong."

 

[Skwim]

Have you been sued?

I'll answer if you can convince me it's material to the discussion.

I only ask because the $150,000 in defense fees for my civil suit before getting to trial sure felt different than that.

Not convincing.

I did not take Basic Law 101, but I am pretty sure that the burden of proof is different in a civil suit

Then you'd be wrong.

and I think that many 'anti-discrimination' laws impose a lower standard of proof than other laws as I understood it the reason was to offset the difficulty in proving certain things (like what someone was thinking)....

Perhaps.

 

[gsa]

But businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone.

Not for reasons that violate public policy, and the scope of those public policy exceptions vary by state. A business is not free to deny service to people on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, which encompasses refusal to serve interracial couples on the basis of "religious objections" to their pairing. Although the federal law does not extend to sexual orientation, several states have laws that similarly restrict the ability of businesses to discriminate on that basis. Additionally, there are states that do not have a state prohibition, but municipal prohibitions on anti-gay discrimination can be found in a number of these states.

This debate was settled about sixty years ago if you recall.

 

[gsa]

I did not take Basic Law 101, but I am pretty sure that the burden of proof is different in a civil suit and I think that many 'anti-discrimination' laws impose a lower standard of proof than other laws ... as I understood it the reason was to offset the difficulty in proving certain things (like what someone was thinking).

No, you still need to prove discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the same standard that applies in most civil suits. What courts will do is apply a burden shifting approach (called the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting analysis) to claims of discrimination that lack certain direct evidence. So for example, a plaintiff's burden in presenting "prima" facie evidence of discriminatory treatment is pretty minimal, but the required showing includes the identification of facts giving rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of race. In practice, this could mean, for example, a black couple being refused service at a restaurant while a white couple is seated. If the plaintiffs can establish this "prima facie" case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the denial of service. If they can do that, the court has to decide whether or not there is enough circumstantial evidence of discrimination that suggests this alleged non-discriminatory reason is not the actual basis for the denial of service. All of this is just a way of weeding out cases that are too weak to be considered by a jury (or "trier of fact" as we say in the biz).

But that rule only applies in the "circumstantial" or "indirect" evidence cases. In direct evidence cases (i.e., "We do not serve blacks here.") there is no need for burden shifting. It just goes to trial to determine whether the action took place or, if uncontested, for questions of damages.

 

[fantome profane]

Where, exactly, is the law against setting up a donation drive?
Tom

I am not an expert in Oregon law, but I know there are some places where it is illegal to have someone else pay your fine for you. The legal theory behind that is the fine is intended as punishment. It is not just a "fee", it is punitive. If the judge sentences you to 6 months in prison, you can't get someone else to go for you, if you are sentenced to community service, you can't get someone else to do it for you, and if you are given a punitive fine you can't get someone else to pay it for you. That is the "punitive" part.

Of course there is no law that says someone can't just give you a financial gift for no reason. But if they declare this is to pay your punitive fine that could be against the law. That may be why gofundme has the policy they have.

 

[Curious George]

No, you still need to prove discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the same standard that applies in most civil suits. What courts will do is apply a burden shifting approach (called the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting analysis) to claims of discrimination that lack certain direct evidence. So for example, a plaintiff's burden in presenting "prima" facie evidence of discriminatory treatment is pretty minimal, but the required showing includes the identification of facts giving rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of race. In practice, this could mean, for example, a black couple being refused service at a restaurant while a white couple is seated. If the plaintiffs can establish this "prima facie" case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the denial of service. If they can do that, the court has to decide whether or not there is enough circumstantial evidence of discrimination that suggests this alleged non-discriminatory reason is not the actual basis for the denial of service. All of this is just a way of weeding out cases that are too weak to be considered by a jury (or "trier of fact" as we say in the biz).

But that rule only applies in the "circumstantial" or "indirect" evidence cases. In direct evidence cases (i.e., "We do not serve blacks here.") there is no need for burden shifting. It just goes to trial to determine whether the action took place or, if uncontested, for questions of damages.

Pretty sure this is an admin law adjudication.

 

[gsa]

Pretty sure this is an admin law adjudication.

This does appear to be the case in Oregon, but it is not the case everywhere. Nevertheless, the Oregon administrative tribunals also apply the same burden shifting (case for this proposition is Lewis & Clark College v. Bureau of Labor, 43 Ore. App. 245 (1979)). They appear to have a relaxed evidentiary standard in administrative enforcement proceeding, however, and they also allow complainants to be compensated for mental and emotional distress, although I think that there is an election of remedies and, if someone chooses the route of administrative enforcement they apparently lose the right to file a civil complaint once there has been a contested administrative hearing.

The Oregon administrative enforcement scheme is interesting, more analogous to workers compensation and unemployment proceedings. In my state, there is a similar process for the civil rights commission, but they must still prove discrimination by preponderance and the factual findings of the commission can be reviewed without any deference to the findings of the commission. You do not have the right to a new hearing, but you have the right to have the evidence reviewed by a trial court within the judicial branch.

Nevertheless, in this case the outcome would not be any different. There is no major factual dispute here, so the questions are primarily legal ones (whether it constitutes sexual orientation discrimination, effect of First Amendment, etc).

 

[Curious George]

This does appear to be the case in Oregon, but it is not the case everywhere. Nevertheless, the Oregon administrative tribunals also apply the same burden shifting (case for this proposition is Lewis & Clark College v. Bureau of Labor, 43 Ore. App. 245 (1979)). They appear to have a relaxed evidentiary standard in administrative enforcement proceeding, however, and they also allow complainants to be compensated for mental and emotional distress, although I think that there is an election of remedies and, if someone chooses the route of administrative enforcement they apparently lose the right to file a civil complaint once there has been a contested administrative hearing.

The Oregon administrative enforcement scheme is interesting, more analogous to workers compensation and unemployment proceedings. In my state, there is a similar process for the civil rights commission, but they must still prove discrimination by preponderance and the factual findings of the commission can be reviewed without any deference to the findings of the commission. You do not have the right to a new hearing, but you have the right to have the evidence reviewed by a trial court within the judicial branch.

Nevertheless, in this case the outcome would not be any different. There is no major factual dispute here, so the questions are primarily legal ones (whether it constitutes sexual orientation discrimination, effect of First Amendment, etc).

Won't this make the appeal different? Isn't that a different outcome?

 

[gsa]

Won't this make the appeal different? Isn't that a different outcome?

No. Only because the facts are not really disputed. They admit that they would deny services to a same-sex couple, so the only question is whether or not that admitted fact is a violation of the statute.

 

[Curious George]

No. Only because the facts are not really disputed. They admit that they would deny services to a same-sex couple, so the only question is whether or not that admitted fact is a violation of the statute.

I am thinking for damages. Wouldn't the standard of review for a trial court be different than an adjudication by an administrative agency?

 

[Breathe]

Not for reasons that violate public policy, and the scope of those public policy exceptions vary by state. A business is not free to deny service to people on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, which encompasses refusal to serve interracial couples on the basis of "religious objections" to their pairing. Although the federal law does not extend to sexual orientation, several states have laws that similarly restrict the ability of businesses to discriminate on that basis. Additionally, there are states that do not have a state prohibition, but municipal prohibitions on anti-gay discrimination can be found in a number of these states.

But they didn't deny something based on homosexuality; they refused to bake a cake supporting gay marriage.
Big difference.

This debate was settled about sixty years ago if you recall.

Not that old.

 

[Shad]

But businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone.

Not if it breaks the laws. So clearly they do not have the right to refuse based on sex, race and sexual orientation. Hence why it is illegal to deny service to African-Americas for being African American. Or deny service since they do not support non-white marriage. One could produce a religious reason for not serving African Americas, they did in the 60s and before.

SC Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs
Maurice Bessinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant is this very fact allows churches to marry whom they want. Hence why Churches are not treated as businesses but religious organizations. Hence why say a Rabbi can not sue a Churches for not hiring them as it's pastor. You comment shows that you have no ideas there is a difference hence your fear mongering is not only a strawman but an easy refuted by looking up US law
42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Another method is to remove any rights religious organizations have when it comes to marriage beyond acting as an area in which witnesses are present in order to provide testimony. Thus there is no public service to offer and nothing to sue over.

Lying and distortion.
Stop being silly.

No need to lie. Literal a few seconds of thought and looking up relevant laws.