Posted on Apr 24, 2015
Oregon Rules Christian Bakers Who Refused Gay Wedding to Pay $135,000 Fine For Couple's Suffering. Who Pays Costs Of Religious Persecution?
29.4K
239
150
16
16
0
Without the expert testimony of psychologists or therapists, the State of Oregon has determined that the extent of suffering caused by one lesbian couple who were politely declined service on religious grounds by one bakery should result in said bakery paying said couple $135,000 for a myriad of symptoms the couple allege stem from the emotional trauma caused by the refusal of service, to include: “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.” Hmmm. These sound strangely similar to the many symptoms Aaron and Melissa Klein have likely experienced upon being unfairly forced out of business, and now unjustly being compelled to expend their life's savings paying a tyrannical fine. Who then, shall they file claim against?
Politics
Christianity
Human Rights
Diversity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 50
3
3
0
I like cake just like any other fat kid, but I have never suffered $135,000 for not getting my grub on. Then again, I would have just made the dang cake and not force my religion or beliefs on anyone. Take down the signs that say we have the right to refuse service to anyone. I can't wait for the order of a wedding cake topped with Johnny Jihad cutting off an infidels head. Will they get more than $135,000?
(3)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I agree I feel this was A setup to a lawsuit. It is to be blunt. total horse shit.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We as individuals have the choice to be gay or straight. Just as family owned businesses have the right to choose to, or not to cater a gay or straight requests for business. Honestly it's their loss in business and those who choose to be offended by their decision. However, they should not be monetarily penalized for something that is their right to choose.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Mentally Raped? Dear Lord... I just cant take people seriously anymore.
Everyone is so delicate and such a victim.
And heaven forbid you speak up anymore...you quickly get labelled a bigot or homophobe.
Everyone is so delicate and such a victim.
And heaven forbid you speak up anymore...you quickly get labelled a bigot or homophobe.
(2)
(0)
SA Harold Hansmann
Oh, oh, oh, can I be the bigot? I know a lot of racial jokes. Pick one, finlanders or pollacks. Either Ano or Toivo or both.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Simple answer, no one.
When you open your business doors to the public, you open them to just that. THE PUBLIC.
You don't get to pick and choose who you provide service to, that's not the way operating a business works. If that is the case they need to close their doors to the public and bake cakes out of their house and solicit business via their Facebook friends list.
From a religious stand-point, why should these owners even care that their clients are gay? Shouldn't "he without sin cast the first stone"? This is flat out discrimination. Let me put it to you this way....
-Would it be okay for a business to turn me away because it's their religious freedom to not serve black people? (Refer to the Jim Crow laws)
-Would it be okay for a business to turn me away because it's their religious freedom to not serve military members?
-Would it be okay for a business to turn away straight people because it's their religious freedom?
I'm just saying, all people should be treated equally, especially if you are going to serve the public. It's one thing if they went into the bakery and acted belligerent, rude, nasty, and disrespectful. That wasn't the case. When you boil it all down, they were a couple who wanted a cake, to celebrate their eternal bond. They were denied that because they both have the same genitalia. People need to seriously grow up.
When you open your business doors to the public, you open them to just that. THE PUBLIC.
You don't get to pick and choose who you provide service to, that's not the way operating a business works. If that is the case they need to close their doors to the public and bake cakes out of their house and solicit business via their Facebook friends list.
From a religious stand-point, why should these owners even care that their clients are gay? Shouldn't "he without sin cast the first stone"? This is flat out discrimination. Let me put it to you this way....
-Would it be okay for a business to turn me away because it's their religious freedom to not serve black people? (Refer to the Jim Crow laws)
-Would it be okay for a business to turn me away because it's their religious freedom to not serve military members?
-Would it be okay for a business to turn away straight people because it's their religious freedom?
I'm just saying, all people should be treated equally, especially if you are going to serve the public. It's one thing if they went into the bakery and acted belligerent, rude, nasty, and disrespectful. That wasn't the case. When you boil it all down, they were a couple who wanted a cake, to celebrate their eternal bond. They were denied that because they both have the same genitalia. People need to seriously grow up.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. The concept of public accommodation created by the Civil Rights Act, while legal, does not magically give the public a legitimate claim to a business. It gives them a legal one, but not a legitimate one, which was my point here.
And I would posit that it does not protect people from discrimination, rather that it is a form of reverse discrimination. Instead of forcing discrimination by businesses upon the public as under Jim Crow, now discrimination is forced upon businesses by the public. While individuals have the right to discriminate - because for a private citizen to discriminate against another does not necessitate an initiation of force or fraud against life/property - gov't does not have the right to discriminate, because gov't IS force.
Yes, it is legal until overturned (perhaps it could make for a 9th amendment case?), but the law does not determine natural rights, only legal rights. As such, that business owners must "be smarter" and pander to the system/bureaucracy is absurd. It is not the responsibility of individuals to submit to the will of the gov't, it is the responsibility of the gov't to submit to the rights of individuals. FOR the people, by the people. That's why I think, no matter how this scenario is spun, the gov't is in the wrong here. Even that it's true that the bakery owners could bring this case to federal court (on 9th amendment grounds for example), they may or may not have the means to do so, which is why the heavy hand of the law is best kept relatively restrained.
And I would posit that it does not protect people from discrimination, rather that it is a form of reverse discrimination. Instead of forcing discrimination by businesses upon the public as under Jim Crow, now discrimination is forced upon businesses by the public. While individuals have the right to discriminate - because for a private citizen to discriminate against another does not necessitate an initiation of force or fraud against life/property - gov't does not have the right to discriminate, because gov't IS force.
Yes, it is legal until overturned (perhaps it could make for a 9th amendment case?), but the law does not determine natural rights, only legal rights. As such, that business owners must "be smarter" and pander to the system/bureaucracy is absurd. It is not the responsibility of individuals to submit to the will of the gov't, it is the responsibility of the gov't to submit to the rights of individuals. FOR the people, by the people. That's why I think, no matter how this scenario is spun, the gov't is in the wrong here. Even that it's true that the bakery owners could bring this case to federal court (on 9th amendment grounds for example), they may or may not have the means to do so, which is why the heavy hand of the law is best kept relatively restrained.
PO2 (Join to see)
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. I could not agree more with you! It is perfectly okay to have religious views but, you cannot let that impact your business. 1st Lt Matt Azimi Sir, think of Chick-Fil-A as a fine example, a great company! Truett Cathy, the founder was an openly Christian man who did not support gay marriage. However, his company continues to serve everyone despite them being openly gay. In addition to that, I am very certain that there are even gay employees. It's okay to build a business based off of your religious beliefs, just as long as you aren't hiding behind them to discriminate a group of people.
you said "People should absolutely treat each other equally, but people should also never be coerced into doing so." To me, that sounds like you're saying "yes we SHOULD treat people equally, however we can't make them if they don't want to".
I definitely respect your opinion but, I think that's the wrong way to look at it; considering the many nationalities, sexes, ages and countless other things that make America so unique and so envied by many other countries.
you said "People should absolutely treat each other equally, but people should also never be coerced into doing so." To me, that sounds like you're saying "yes we SHOULD treat people equally, however we can't make them if they don't want to".
I definitely respect your opinion but, I think that's the wrong way to look at it; considering the many nationalities, sexes, ages and countless other things that make America so unique and so envied by many other countries.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
PO2 (Join to see) I agree that Chick-Fil-A is a good example of how a person with their unique biases should behave, but I also think what makes it better is that Chick-Fil-A CHOOSES to serve everyone (it'd be bad for business if they didn't...and apparently the gov't will come knocking if they don't anyway). I think that when one chooses freely to be kind to others, that is infinitely more respectable and appropriate than a person who is being forced to behave a certain way, because then it isn't genuine.
And yes, you interpreted my statement correctly. I think the fact that we are so diverse is exactly why it's a better way to look at it. Forcing people to "respect" each other has significantly greater potential to kindle resentment than encouragement does. I think the battle for equal treatment is best won by persuasion rather than force. For example, the LGBT community did not suddenly receive more respect from others because gov't forced anyone to. People were persuaded, over time, via public awareness campaigns and such, that there is nothing inherently wrong with being LGBT. The law has come around to recognize that respect after the fact (and the law is very slow to react in pretty much all things). That's part of why I think so many people wish they lived here, because while we still deal with it, our gov't is significantly less intrusive (socially at least) than it is in many other places.
And yes, you interpreted my statement correctly. I think the fact that we are so diverse is exactly why it's a better way to look at it. Forcing people to "respect" each other has significantly greater potential to kindle resentment than encouragement does. I think the battle for equal treatment is best won by persuasion rather than force. For example, the LGBT community did not suddenly receive more respect from others because gov't forced anyone to. People were persuaded, over time, via public awareness campaigns and such, that there is nothing inherently wrong with being LGBT. The law has come around to recognize that respect after the fact (and the law is very slow to react in pretty much all things). That's part of why I think so many people wish they lived here, because while we still deal with it, our gov't is significantly less intrusive (socially at least) than it is in many other places.
Suspended Profile
SGT Efaw (Mick) G. I agree that running a business entails certain legal obligations and such, and given the existing system, their decision (or more likely ignorance of the option) to not register was not "smart". I just do not think adherence to bureaucracy should be a determinant of right and wrong, particularly with regards to so much money, even though it is an idealistic opinion for me to hold.
2
2
0
Each individual's liberty suffers at the imposition of behavior by another, or by government. We need to weigh the loss of freedom against the potential harm of lack of fairness, or inequality. In this case, could the bakers legally go on vacation instead of refusing? Could the gay couple have easily found a different bakery? Am I allowed to be grossed out by some sexual behaviors? Who sets the rules on what I am allowed to think? This case gives me emotional trauma. Who can I sue?
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz Lulz, sir. Couldn't have said it better myself, though I did try.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
This goes beyond equal rights and goes directly into pure greed. Destroy a family just because you cannot go to another damned bakery.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think the judgment is a slap in the face to everyone and sets a dangerous standard. There needs to be tolerance and understanding on BOTH sides. IMHO, If LGBT community wants universal acceptance, they can't be putting their agenda in everyone's face first then complain they aren't being accepted by EVERYONE. Heterosexual couples don't walk around flaunting Heterosexuality in people's faces to get attention, so neither should any other group. Just act naturally w/o attracting attention.
Our local Boy Scout council does not restrict anyone based on gender orientation/preference despite the national organization's unfortunate policy. We don't ask because its not relevant to our program and no one needs to tell because it's their personal business. Sexuality is not part of the Boy Scout agenda and never has been. A lot of Boy Scout sponsor organizations are Christian Churches. Thankfully none locally have closed their doors to us over the issue of LGBT scouts and adult leaders. The churches that support us have not questioned us on our membership so long as they are people who pass a criminal background check and take youth protection training.
Our local Boy Scout council does not restrict anyone based on gender orientation/preference despite the national organization's unfortunate policy. We don't ask because its not relevant to our program and no one needs to tell because it's their personal business. Sexuality is not part of the Boy Scout agenda and never has been. A lot of Boy Scout sponsor organizations are Christian Churches. Thankfully none locally have closed their doors to us over the issue of LGBT scouts and adult leaders. The churches that support us have not questioned us on our membership so long as they are people who pass a criminal background check and take youth protection training.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This is disgusting on so many levels. IF the LGBTQIA (or whatever the hodgepodge of letters is today/everyone BUT heterosexuals) want to boycott the bakery, fine. To fine a baker this insane amount is, as the story states, tyrannical. I might be willing to consider some form of fine if there was a bakers guild and this couple was unable to go to another bakery across the street and get a cake, but destroying someone's business and bankrupting them because of someone wanted to force someone to do something against their belief is what government is supposed to try and protect.
IF the State of Oregon thinks someone should be fined $135,000 for not making someone a cake, how much are veterans owed for the myriad of symptoms we all have faced dealing with the VA? Additionally, when dealing with the VA, these are things we were promised decades ago AND not services we can walk down the street to another provider and get?
IF the State of Oregon thinks someone should be fined $135,000 for not making someone a cake, how much are veterans owed for the myriad of symptoms we all have faced dealing with the VA? Additionally, when dealing with the VA, these are things we were promised decades ago AND not services we can walk down the street to another provider and get?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Why should anyone be forced to accept something? Its bad enough that if you don't see eye to eye with a labeled social group on every specific point they condemn you as being unaccepting of their group.
(2)
(0)
SMSgt Donald Polaski
YUP - Like I'm not nuts about the KKK.. So now am I going to be taken to court?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Capt (Join to see)
The hypocrisy I see is that it is wrong if you are doing it to my group but right if my group is doing it yours. e.g. refusing to bake a cake because you do not believe same sex marriage is wrong. but, refusing to bake a cake because the message requested is not right.
(2)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) I think the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the state is involved at all. The government shouldn't be able to regulate who a business associates with, assuming the business isn't supported by the government. This should be a civil matter only.
(sorry, tag might be wrong.)
Capt (Join to see)
(sorry, tag might be wrong.)
Capt (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SPC (Join to see), I appreciate that sentiment. There are many people who believe that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Maybe that would work; it didn't work in the South with either de jure or de facto segregation.
What persuades me is that the market is not an engine of morality. I think we can agree that, as a matter of morality, people should treat those of other races with respect. The thinking goes that, in a pure market system, businesses who refuse to serve black people, for instance, would suffer the market consequences and be forced into bankruptcy. Empirically, that is not the result; consider that Memories Pizza received more than $800,000 in gratuitous donations in less than one week after it refused to serve a gay couple. To explain generally, very few people make purchasing decisions on a moral basis. In an unregulated market system, a company would have no duty, nor even a reason, to advertise to its customers its business practices of questionable morality. What's more, even if these eventually come to light, e.g. that the "Acme" company won't sell to racial minorities, any public moral backlash would naturally lead the company to lower the price of its goods or services. Lowering the prices would incentivize people to buy from Acme rather than a company that serves all races. If you could buy an Acme (discriminatory) car for $7000 or a similar car from a non-discriminatory company for $10,000, you very well might make the amoral, economic decision to save $3000. Perhaps you do the math and find that it is worth more to you to save that money than to stand up for anti-discrimination, especially if you are not being discriminated against.
Those are some of my arguments. I would like to hear your perspective on how a pure market system would deal with discrimination. Thanks for reading, if you've made it this far.
What persuades me is that the market is not an engine of morality. I think we can agree that, as a matter of morality, people should treat those of other races with respect. The thinking goes that, in a pure market system, businesses who refuse to serve black people, for instance, would suffer the market consequences and be forced into bankruptcy. Empirically, that is not the result; consider that Memories Pizza received more than $800,000 in gratuitous donations in less than one week after it refused to serve a gay couple. To explain generally, very few people make purchasing decisions on a moral basis. In an unregulated market system, a company would have no duty, nor even a reason, to advertise to its customers its business practices of questionable morality. What's more, even if these eventually come to light, e.g. that the "Acme" company won't sell to racial minorities, any public moral backlash would naturally lead the company to lower the price of its goods or services. Lowering the prices would incentivize people to buy from Acme rather than a company that serves all races. If you could buy an Acme (discriminatory) car for $7000 or a similar car from a non-discriminatory company for $10,000, you very well might make the amoral, economic decision to save $3000. Perhaps you do the math and find that it is worth more to you to save that money than to stand up for anti-discrimination, especially if you are not being discriminated against.
Those are some of my arguments. I would like to hear your perspective on how a pure market system would deal with discrimination. Thanks for reading, if you've made it this far.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) I'm not sure I can think of a solution, nor that there even could be one. I don't feel it is or should be the responsibility of the state, and by proxy the people, to require businesses to conduct themselves in a morally appropriate manner as determined by the culture of the times. The government should only step in when it can be shown that the individual is justly harmed. My feelings as to what this might would be are examples like a government funded organizations denying services meant for all citizens based on arbitrary descriptors (race, religion, etc). Other examples might be applicable if that particular company has an effective monopoly, or if a previously agreed upon contract is broken, or other issues that are mostly covered by other laws, some without regard to discrimination.
I'm not a free market proponent, exactly. Government serves necessary functions; i believe among them is to protect the individual liberties of its citizens. I don't see how a business not receiving government funds must be forced to provide services, just like do not agree that individuals should be forced to associate with a company for services that they do not require or wish to participate in.
Our current system is not perfect, nor can I describe a perfect system. These are just some of my thoughts on the subject. I'm not sure any of this even made sense.
I'm not a free market proponent, exactly. Government serves necessary functions; i believe among them is to protect the individual liberties of its citizens. I don't see how a business not receiving government funds must be forced to provide services, just like do not agree that individuals should be forced to associate with a company for services that they do not require or wish to participate in.
Our current system is not perfect, nor can I describe a perfect system. These are just some of my thoughts on the subject. I'm not sure any of this even made sense.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google