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
0
0
0
This is a civil case founded on English Common and Tort laws. I'd expect it to be appealed. Where's the religious persecution though? It looks at least on face value another business isn't going to play nice, make a greenback, and reject tolerance on religious principals.
It will be very interesting to see how this "persecution" boondoggle plays out later this year. The Supreme Court by all reports SEEMS to be inclined to support same sex marriages on the national level and the effects which will resonate on civil rights.
According to Bloomberg, 8 out of 10 entrepreneurs who start businesses fail within the first 18 months. A new metric is refuse same-sex business services (unless in hegemonic Indiana). Personally, if I were an entrepreneur I'd love to not serve fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist Muslims.
It will be very interesting to see how this "persecution" boondoggle plays out later this year. The Supreme Court by all reports SEEMS to be inclined to support same sex marriages on the national level and the effects which will resonate on civil rights.
According to Bloomberg, 8 out of 10 entrepreneurs who start businesses fail within the first 18 months. A new metric is refuse same-sex business services (unless in hegemonic Indiana). Personally, if I were an entrepreneur I'd love to not serve fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist Muslims.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is only as discriminatory as refusing service to a couple on the sole grounds of them being black. Business owners should always reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reasons they may have, but be ready to pay for it. I don't think the business should be fined, and we are setting a dangerous precedent, but maybe you shouldn't own a business if you're not willing to serve people who want to patronize that business.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This reminds me of when Chic-fil-a's CEO was under scrutiny for his beliefs against same sex marriage. He may not believe is same sex marriage...but he will sure sell them chicken! Part of being an American is having the right to freedom of Religion. God is the only one who can judge the gay couple. Which sin is worse...gay marriage or coveting the couple by humiliating them? Sin is sin...they are the same. When the time comes we will all be judged INDIVIDUALLY. Before you try to remove the speck from your brothers eye, you must first remove the log from your own. If it would of been a Muslim couple they refused...the business would have been burned to the ground instead of having to pay.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I think people have a right to freedom of association. Why would you force someone who doesn't like you to bake you a cake? On the flip side, why should people who don't like a good or service be forced to buy it? And if a person wants someone to come to accept his/her side, s/he should use persuasion, not coercion. I don't see why gov't won't take a neutral position in these matters, as opposed to picking sides.
I don't think the 9th Amendment is clear enough for these folks, I think we may need an amendment that explicitly permits freedom of association. It would remove bias from more than just the social arena.
I don't think the 9th Amendment is clear enough for these folks, I think we may need an amendment that explicitly permits freedom of association. It would remove bias from more than just the social arena.
Suspended Profile
My use of the word "accept" was the best I could come up with when I wrote that. I acknowledge that tolerance and acceptance are two different things. I think a better way to convey my point may be to say "if a person wants someone to be convinced of their position", or something to that effect. Basically I'm just trying to say that persuasion is more productive than coercion, whether you want someone to change their mind about something, or be more tolerant of your position, or just be more open minded in general. Coercion just shuts people down and puts them on the defensive. If people want to be treated better, they should rely on persuasion over time, and not coercion in my opinion.
0
0
0
It sounds like they were a lap waiting for a cup of coffee. It is a little late for this case, but what if we came to a compromise in the future. Instead of asking for a wedding cake, ask for a custom tiered cake on a certain date. Bakers can insist on not putting a cake topper on due to it not being a food item of something. Nudge nudge wink wink, no one has damning knowledge on either side. Lawsuit are avoided, fortunes are neither won nor lost in the court of law that day due to cake and everyone get along with their lives. But that would never make headlines so I best not get my hopes up.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
For context, I'm a left-leaning, individual-liberty supporting, patriotic, american-born atheist. That being said:
I.D.G.A.flying.F. what the law is. A business owner that is not accepting tax exemptions or state support for their business has every right to refuse service to anyone they want. They have a right to employ anyone they want. As evil as discrimination seems to me, what right have I, or the state, to require them to serve person they do not wish to associate with. Anyone's religion or sexual orientation almost seems irrelevant here to me.
Now, the only way I can see these results being close to sane is if the business did break an agreement with the couple that did inconvenience them and cause them to spend more money than they should have directly because of that. A possible example being if the business initially agreed to make the cake, and only close to the date of the event refused service. Even if they returned the money, the couple may be unfairly inconvenienced. IDK, I'm not a lawyer. I can't find facts to indicate one way or another on this topic.
I've been shaking my head in disgust since this story first broke.
I.D.G.A.flying.F. what the law is. A business owner that is not accepting tax exemptions or state support for their business has every right to refuse service to anyone they want. They have a right to employ anyone they want. As evil as discrimination seems to me, what right have I, or the state, to require them to serve person they do not wish to associate with. Anyone's religion or sexual orientation almost seems irrelevant here to me.
Now, the only way I can see these results being close to sane is if the business did break an agreement with the couple that did inconvenience them and cause them to spend more money than they should have directly because of that. A possible example being if the business initially agreed to make the cake, and only close to the date of the event refused service. Even if they returned the money, the couple may be unfairly inconvenienced. IDK, I'm not a lawyer. I can't find facts to indicate one way or another on this topic.
I've been shaking my head in disgust since this story first broke.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SGT Luke Fouquier I agree that there is a big difference there, the difference being that the latter statement is rude and hurtful. However, I agree with SPC (Join to see), I do not think people have a right not to be offended. I think people DO have a right to freedom of association. Would you want someone who doesn't like you to bake you a cake? Do you want to be forced to buy a good or service you don't want or like? I do not think it is wise nor moral to make people's feelings a legal matter.
And SPC Kinas, based on this post I would highly doubt you are left-leaning, I think you may actually be a [closet?] libertarian.
And SPC Kinas, based on this post I would highly doubt you are left-leaning, I think you may actually be a [closet?] libertarian.
SPC (Join to see)
1st Lt Matt Azimi, libertarian ideas sound pretty good to me. But the Libertarian Party seems a bit hypocritical on some of their finer points, to me. But that would be nit-picking, probably.
I heard a phrase once: My right to throw punches ends at someone else's face, and vice-versa. Has stuck with me ever since.
I don't see why the state has a dog in this fight. Seems like it should be a civil matter.
I heard a phrase once: My right to throw punches ends at someone else's face, and vice-versa. Has stuck with me ever since.
I don't see why the state has a dog in this fight. Seems like it should be a civil matter.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SPC (Join to see) I wouldn't know of any particulars of philosophical hypocrisy on the part of the LP, but then again I register as an independent. I don't know of any hypocrisy/internal contradiction within Objectivism, which is one philosophy of libertarianism/classical liberalism, but people will behave as they will.
This is probably not the right thread, but I'm pretty sure I could very strongly argue that the LP is significantly less hypocritical than either the Dems or GOP, if you've cared enough to register as either of those....not that it matters aside from getting to vote in primaries, really.
This is probably not the right thread, but I'm pretty sure I could very strongly argue that the LP is significantly less hypocritical than either the Dems or GOP, if you've cared enough to register as either of those....not that it matters aside from getting to vote in primaries, really.
0
0
0
PO3 Steven Sherrill
MSG Brad Sand in a perfect world you are correct. A wedding would be a religious ceremony based on love and devotion. The sad reality is that in our modern age, marriage is a legal partnership with guidelines provided for the division of assets upon dissolution of the partnership. I will site the military as an example. Who has not heard of someone getting married so that they can collect BAH, and the "Spouse" can collect Tricare? I heard about that before I got out of bootcamp.
You are correct there is a fine line between calling someone a bigot and becoming one. We all have prejudices. They may be small, we may not acknowledge them even to ourselves. The test of character comes in overcoming our prejudices and treating other people as human beings.
You are correct there is a fine line between calling someone a bigot and becoming one. We all have prejudices. They may be small, we may not acknowledge them even to ourselves. The test of character comes in overcoming our prejudices and treating other people as human beings.
(0)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
PO3 Steven Sherrill
It is not a perfect world, but that does not mean we should not fight to make it a perfect world. I cannot tell the heart of the baker, but from what I do know, they did not elect not to make a WEDDING cake because of hate. IF they simply refused because they were ______(fill in the blank) I might change my opinion.
Additionally, just because other...to include the State...abuse and usurps an institution does not mean that it is right to not fight for what is right? I think their is an absolute agenda by Progressives to undermine the institution of marriage. It started in the African-American community and they are trying to spread this disease to the general population.
It is not a perfect world, but that does not mean we should not fight to make it a perfect world. I cannot tell the heart of the baker, but from what I do know, they did not elect not to make a WEDDING cake because of hate. IF they simply refused because they were ______(fill in the blank) I might change my opinion.
Additionally, just because other...to include the State...abuse and usurps an institution does not mean that it is right to not fight for what is right? I think their is an absolute agenda by Progressives to undermine the institution of marriage. It started in the African-American community and they are trying to spread this disease to the general population.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
I know Major Hoiland you were doing so good till now, but did you really think I'd not comment? You know I would. They're just using religion as an excuse to hate on people. It's not about being christian because they aren't acting in a christian manner. When Jesus was handing out the water he made into wine do you think he only gave it to the straight people? do you think he cared?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
They could have avoided it all if they just made the damn cake. Fuck LET THEM EAT CAKE
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
MAJ (Join to see) Religious prosecution?
NO.
Just the same, why not criticize the religious prosecution from the store owners who used that ruse to deny service to the lesbian couple.
EDITED for typographical error, unable to type @ character from phone.
NO.
Just the same, why not criticize the religious prosecution from the store owners who used that ruse to deny service to the lesbian couple.
EDITED for typographical error, unable to type @ character from phone.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA, thanks for joining in this morning! Please note, I'm all fired up with my morning joe! Could you please explain how exercising one's right to refuse service due to reasons of religious convictions, a principle that up until now has been protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution for the past 232 years, is now suddenly scrapped in the interest of safeguarding and protecting the group rights of a court-decreed Protected Class of citizens?
WTF is this?
Animal Farm?
All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others?
As men and women who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, the bastardization of the document in this manner should be enough raise all the hairs on all of our necks; it does so for me. Everywhere within the original text, I read of the rights granted to the Individual. Nowhere do I see a reference to a Protected Class. I will stand on the side of the Founders and the Individual; I will stand on the side of the bakers!
WTF is this?
Animal Farm?
All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others?
As men and women who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, the bastardization of the document in this manner should be enough raise all the hairs on all of our necks; it does so for me. Everywhere within the original text, I read of the rights granted to the Individual. Nowhere do I see a reference to a Protected Class. I will stand on the side of the Founders and the Individual; I will stand on the side of the bakers!
(1)
(0)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
MAJ (Join to see) Good morning to you as well sir!
i don't see the disparity here.
Freedom of speech is not the same as bigotry and discrimination.
Freedom of religion is still alive and well as far as I can see, we have everything from Scientologists to those who believe and idolize the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But there is a line between following the tenets of any religion and breaking established laws of the land. That's why the Native Indians had so much trouble before they were allowed to use peyote and marihuana for their rituals. Or why satanists are convicted if they decide to use humans for their rituals, or why if you decide to steal you are convicted, no matter how many times you try to explain that Jesus told you to take from one to give to another.
Similarly, as far as I know, nowhere in any christian doctrinal text, it says to deny service to a lesbian couple. In fact, last I checked, Jesus himself told everyone that he was the new (meaning, love for thy neighbor was the new rule, out with the endless restrictions of the old testament).
So, unless those bakers were making their own version of Christianity, they still would have been going against the discrimination laws established in these United States.
And you are right sir, the framers intended the individual to have the "legal advantage". So why, then, are the discriminated individuals not afforded the same level of right privilege? Their rights are just as valid as anyone's.
Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from the injured party in a discrimination case.
The judicial system is not the same as "the government".
v/r
i don't see the disparity here.
Freedom of speech is not the same as bigotry and discrimination.
Freedom of religion is still alive and well as far as I can see, we have everything from Scientologists to those who believe and idolize the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But there is a line between following the tenets of any religion and breaking established laws of the land. That's why the Native Indians had so much trouble before they were allowed to use peyote and marihuana for their rituals. Or why satanists are convicted if they decide to use humans for their rituals, or why if you decide to steal you are convicted, no matter how many times you try to explain that Jesus told you to take from one to give to another.
Similarly, as far as I know, nowhere in any christian doctrinal text, it says to deny service to a lesbian couple. In fact, last I checked, Jesus himself told everyone that he was the new (meaning, love for thy neighbor was the new rule, out with the endless restrictions of the old testament).
So, unless those bakers were making their own version of Christianity, they still would have been going against the discrimination laws established in these United States.
And you are right sir, the framers intended the individual to have the "legal advantage". So why, then, are the discriminated individuals not afforded the same level of right privilege? Their rights are just as valid as anyone's.
Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from the injured party in a discrimination case.
The judicial system is not the same as "the government".
v/r
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Total Horsecrap. Bigotry of a kind and they should appeal that asinine judge for selective discrimination. And that judge removed from his judgeship. Partisan hack and a moron.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google