Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then what exactly is discrimination based on orientation? "I won't sell you my goods because you are gay?" If that is the case then Sweet Cakes violated no law because they gladly served them as customers before. Their discrimination was against an immoral act being the same sex marriage, not the individuals themselves.
They tried that argument and the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries in their Interim order didn't buy it.
"Respondents’ attempt to divorce their refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding from Complainants’ sexual orientation is neither novel nor supported by case law. As the Agency argues in support of its cross-motion, “[t]here is simply no reason to distinguish between services for a wedding ceremony between two persons of the same sex and the sexual orientation of that couple. The conduct, a marriage ceremony, is inextricably linked to a person’s sexual orientation.”
the Oregon BoLI also addressed and rejected the claim that since one of the women was sold a cake previously, there could not have been discrimination based on sexual orientation
"Respondents’ first argument fails for the reason that there is no evidence in the record that A. Klein, the person who refused to make a cake for Complainants while acting on Sweetcakes’ behalf, had any knowledge of Complainants’ sexual orientation in November 2010 when Cryer purchased a cake for her mother’s wedding. Even if A. Klein was aware of Cryer’s sexual orientation in November 2010, not discriminating on one occasion does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that A. Klein did not discriminate on a subsequent occasion."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Sounds like everyone gets an exception including gays except for Christians. Oh yea, we gotta make Christians bow to our will.
But Christians do have protection under the same laws! It is, and has been for a long time, illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion. I cannot refuse to make you a wedding cake because you are having a Christian ceremony. I cannot refuse to make a cake for a Jewish ceremony. I cannot refuse to make a cake for a muslim ceremony, even if it is for a second wife! Why then should I be able to refuse to make a cake for a homosexual ceremony? You are protected by the same laws you decry when that protecting is extended to them.
Sounds like everyone gets an exception including gays except for Christians. Oh yea, we gotta make Christians bow to our will. Then what exactly is discrimination based on orientation? "I won't sell you my goods because you are gay?" If that is the case then Sweet Cakes violated no law because they gladly served them as customers before. Their discrimination was against an immoral act being the same sex marriage, not the individuals themselves.
Jeff
It has been explained to you at least twice that if a Christian goes into a gay owned store the gay person CANNOT refuse to sell or serve him or her based on them being Christian. They can refuse to sell the a product that they do not sell to anyone else. It is unfortunate that you keep repeating this misconception on your part because it is not true. If a gay person had gone into this same baker and asked to an anti Christian message or a message saying gay marriage is better than straight marriage the baker in questiuon would have had every right to refuse to produce this product. And I beleive that just about every person on this thread who supports the two women involved in this case would support the baker's right to refuse those messages on that cake. I do not care what you beleive but the example I just provided I would be on the baker's side because for one thing he would not be breaking any laws. Why you make everything a pro or anti Christian? It is about discrimination and the baker violated both the anti discrimination laws of the State of Oregon and the women's right to privacy.
The only thing that Christianity has to do with this is the baker is using his religious beliefs to justify disobeying an anti discrimination law.
The point is that there are people whose motivations in "testing" such laws is to find a way to sue a business for violating the laws for financial gain and extort money from businesses, sometimes for frivolous purposes. And it's naive to think that the primary motivation is always to make a principled stand against discrimination; in some cases (not all) people are just looking for a lucrative payout.
That was the point, which I think was rather clear. That's why I gave the example of the lawsuit over the hot coffee that was dismissed/unfounded, because the potential for fraud, and the desire for a payout based more on greed than a desire for social justice, is always there. There's nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism, particularly when hot button, litigious issues are involved. And that goes for either side.
This couple didn't target the bakery for a lawsuit, they went to this bakery because they were familiar with their cakes and liked them, one of their mothers had a wedding cake from this baker.
The only reason for the large fine is because the baker released the couples address to the public, which caused threats against the couple and their children. Maybe the baker should have thought about their actions before violating the law by discriminating, and then publishing the couples address. The baker wasn't even fined for breaking the anti-discrimination law, the fine was for the harm caused by their constant media statements and releasing the couple address.
This is the granddaddy of all scams. Because this case is just a microcosm of the scam that is the entire movement. The scam based on the preposterous premise that "being gay" is an innate identifying characteristic of a person, equivalent to being black, being Asian, being male or being female.
We have created the silliest culture in the history of man. One that thrives on being had.
And this is the granddaddy of denial of facts and reality.
Which, of course, is necessary in order to never, ever part with one's narrow-minded bigotry.
You're right! It's just a choice.
The problem is just that due to lack of memory covering the day of our births, we've simply forgotten that after the slap on the butt and the cutting of the umbilical cord, we were asked to put a checkmark down on the paper that asked which we preferred.... to be sexually attracted to....
Men?
Women?
Both?
For me it was totally different! When I was eight years old I sneezed, and there was no one in the room to say "God bless you!" So the devil jumped in me and made me the sassy bit€h I am today!
What the law says and what the courts say is exactly what this discussion is about. (See thread title)
Sure, we can disagree with laws and with court rulings, however, as long as those laws are in effect, we are liable for any transgressions of same.
I don't agree that the speed limit by my house should be 25 mph. That is not going to negate my fines should I receive a ticket.
?
Then there is no need for this thread whatsoever.
If we are to just adhere to the law and accept that it's right by default, without question, then we shouldn't even be discussing it.
I believe the point of this thread was to discuss the merit of the law, if I'm wrong, and this wasn't meant to provoke discussion, than what is it than? Just an announcement?
I've asked Jeff this question several times, but apparently it's too difficult for him, so I'll ask you.
I'm a hardware store owner, and I fear god's disapproval if I make a profit from or participate in an immoral ceremony. I sell patio furniture, plastic dinnerware, candles, folding chairs, etc., all of which can be used in a gay wedding. How do I qualify my customers to make sure that I'm not making a profit from an immoral ceremony or participating in one?
You could ask your customers what they intend to do with every little thing they buy and if you don't approve, then don't sell them the merch, or you could figure out some other way of doing it.
We'll see how long you keep your doors open. The Free Market more than likely would not allow you to have such a discretionary process over your customers, and you would therefore be weeded out fairly quickly.
The same should be true for those who don't want to supply cakes to gay customers. Those who don't like that policy, or think it's bigoted and wrong ( including myself ) can speak with their wallets and take their business elsewhere. If enough people don't like that policy, than the market will not sustain that business for very long and they will be forced to either change or close up shop, giving way to a new business with policies more favorable to consumers.
The lawsuit was not about LGBT, it was about death threats.
When the complaint was filed, a copy was emailed to the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whereupon they posted the complaint to their Facebook page. The contents of that complaint are the rub. The names, home address, and email address of the plaintiffs were in that post.
The Bowman-Cryer couple received death threats as a result of that post. The foster children they were trying to adopt were at risk of being taken away from them because the state adoption agency told them they were responsible for keeping the threats at bay and their confidential information out of the hands of those who might endanger the children.
Thus the lawsuit. In the end, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer were awarded a judgment for $135,000, not as fines or civil penalties against Sweet Cakes by Melissa, but for the “emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination.”
So framing the award to the lesbian couple as some persecution for being Christian is way wrong. Those people put the couple and their children in danger. That’s why they were ordered to pay up.
Then that is another story, I have to admit. But, this discussion has become more about the practice of denying cakes for gay weddings.
After all, the title of the thread puts emphasis on the fact that the "anti-gay bakers have to pay out".....
If this thread were about the actual details of this case, it wouldn't matter what the bakers think about gay people and thus wouldn't have been mentioned in the title.
Exactly. If I owned a bakery I might very well discriminate, even though it would never be against gay ceremonies .... it's more likely I'd discriminate against Christian fundies if they came in and tried to "save" people, or against Muslim fundies who wanted to celebrate a female circumcision or the suicide bombing of a Jewish wedding in Israel.
That should be my call in my private business, not society's (unless I was receiving some sort of federal funding).
Yes, Irish Need Not Apply, or Colored Enter at the Rear Door, if that's what I want.
Couldn't agree more. As a big proponent of the Free Market System, I think you should have every legal Right to take your little plan and put it in motion, and see how far you get with it.
It's likely you wouldn't stay in business long, and that's the beauty in the free market system. Businesses that offer inadequate or undesirable products, services, or policies will be weeded out, no intervention by the government required.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
