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
1
1
0
1
1
0
Who pays the cost of those who have been denied education or employment due to EO or similar causes?? My wife was denied entry to grad school for speech pathology (a masters is required to become a speech pathologist) 3 times, not because of her GPA but because her skin color and ethnic background weren't correct and the quota for whites had been reached. She was never able to get her masters in her career field and had to get another bachelors degree in a quasi-related field, that we had to pay for, to get her into a career. We feel owed but are also damn sure uncle Obama is not going to write that check!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Everyone, send a cake to the couples home. I hope they get over a thousands cakes.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Slightly different view...I would hope that this would be appealed, if it has not been already. Seems to me the State of Oregon is going against the SCOTUS ruling in the CO baker's similar situation, or at least trying to circumvent what was decided. That to me is 'going after' the bakers, even though they know the SCOTUS has sided with the CO bakery. (not a legal person, but just my humble view)
I have a nephew, who is part of the LGBTQ+ group. I do not want him to be mistreated or harmed by anyone. (I do not agree with his lifestyle, due to Scriptural guidance, but I also love my nephew and see this as secular in principle) I would not consider someone refusing to bake a cake as mistreatment or harm to him. I would hope that he would just find someone else to do the work.
I have a nephew, who is part of the LGBTQ+ group. I do not want him to be mistreated or harmed by anyone. (I do not agree with his lifestyle, due to Scriptural guidance, but I also love my nephew and see this as secular in principle) I would not consider someone refusing to bake a cake as mistreatment or harm to him. I would hope that he would just find someone else to do the work.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Supreme Court shut these sick nazis down and invalidated the Soviet Oregon law. May the libs in this case all burn in hell.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm sure they suffered a myriad of mental injuries. After all, they had to go to dozens of different bakeries before they found one that wouldn't bake their cake.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Forget making a same-sex wedding cake. Rather, let's celebrate divorces by building "Happy Divorce," "Happy Re-Marriage," and "Happy Adultery" cakes!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I have given this a bit of thought and I came to the realization that baking a cake is not condoning or endorsing the practice. They operate a for profit business and the way the laws are now they are prohibited from discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation in the same way they are prohibited from discriminating based on race religion or creed. At the end of the day they aren't commiting a sin by making a cake. They are not being asked to perform the ceremony just to simply make a cake. No more no less.
(0)
(0)
SGT David T.
Same thing take the pictures. That is the act that is being performed. No endorsement no condoning, simply performing their business lines no more no less. It is not slavery or indentured servitude when used as punishment in a court.
Here is the full text of the 13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Here is the full text of the 13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
(0)
(0)
SGT David T.
It does not say prison. It says punishment for a crime. I respect that you do not agree with the position I hold, but we are looking at facts of law not our emotional feelings on it. Let's re-frame this in another way. Hypothetically there are still people who believe on religious grounds that interracial marriage is a sin because got separated the people as punishment. Would a photographer or a baker be justified in refusing service to an interracial couple on their religious ideas? My answer is absolutely not. I respect an individual's right to disagree with same sex marriages or unions or whatever term they wish to use is. However, what I have a problem with is when that idea turns into discrimination. We are all Americans and entitled to equal treatment under the law even when we disagree with that law. When you open a business to the public, you understand that you have to operate in certain guidelines and when you do not you will be punished. It really is as simple as that. The other factor to consider is that the government cannot endorse any particular religious viewpoint including the concept or marriage. if they recognize one form of marriage they must by definition recognize all forms of marriage between consenting adults.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is as dumb as the chick at McDonald's with the hot coffee.
Take your business elsewhere.
Simple solution.
Ain't got nothing against gay marriage, to each his own, but trying to get a lawsuit for something that petty. Really?
Sounds like someone needs to get over themselves.
Of course, then again, the new American dream, isn't about acquiring land, it's about getting rich quick by lawsuit.
Take your business elsewhere.
Simple solution.
Ain't got nothing against gay marriage, to each his own, but trying to get a lawsuit for something that petty. Really?
Sounds like someone needs to get over themselves.
Of course, then again, the new American dream, isn't about acquiring land, it's about getting rich quick by lawsuit.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The issue goes way beyond "equal rights." Many groups, including homosexuals, aren't looking for equal rights. They want to be more than equal. To have their cake and eat it too, if you'll pardon the expression. And it isn't about equal protection under the law, because the bakery owners aren't being protected from frivolous lawsuits. The bottom line is that the government should not have the authority to force a private citizen to sell something if they don't want to (whatever the reason), nor should he be forced to buy something against his will. It isn't as if this bakery is the only option for the loving couple. Gays have taken to targeting business owners/businesses with Christian principles, and using the courts to establish precedent to compell acceptance of their agenda.
There is no longer a "right to refuse service" for any business owner. If they aren't forced by judicial ruling, then they will be the victim of militant gays and sympathizers who are known to threaten violence and destruction.
There is no longer a "right to refuse service" for any business owner. If they aren't forced by judicial ruling, then they will be the victim of militant gays and sympathizers who are known to threaten violence and destruction.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google