Christian Baker Fined & Silenced

[Socrates]

We can look forward to more of such lawsuits and unjust rulings ad nauseum, thanks to our Supreme Court's recent glorious ruling, so celebrated by our media and Dear Leader.

Let's make no mistake, the real goal here isn't "equal rights," but silencing and punishing any and all opposition to to the "gay" social agenda.

[Socrates]

Not in Oregon, but maybe in South Carolina.

I very sincerely doubt it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Somebody sounds butthurt.

[Peace]

I dunno how I feel about this. But $135 seems a bit ridiculous.

On the one hand you are dealing with a wedding cake, so there is a connection between that and religious beliefs. I don't think you can say that a Catholic wedding planner is wrong to refuse to plan gay "weddings".

On the other hand, there is a concern that there could be a bit of a slippery slope to unjustified discrimination, such as a not serving a gay couple at your restaurant, etc. . .

[Socrates]

I dunno how I feel about this. But $135 seems a bit ridiculous.

On the one hand you are dealing with a wedding cake, so there is a connection between that and religious beliefs. I don't think you can say that a Catholic wedding planner is wrong to refuse to plan gay "weddings".

On the other hand, there is a concern that there could be a bit of a slippery slope to unjustified discrimination, such as a not serving a gay couple at your restaurant, etc. . .

So called "gay marriage" has only existed at all in this country extremely recently, so the "slippery slope" argument doesn't really doesn't hold a lot of water, especially with the direction social attitudes are (unfortunately) moving.  Most "gays" have no problem getting served at restaurants and such.

I'm convinced most of the people filing these lawsuits could easily find another baker or such willing to cater to them - what's going on is the targeting of businesses owned by Christians opposed to homosexual activity for destruction by activists. 

 

[Luigi]

So called "gay marriage" has only existed at all in this country extremely recently, so the "slippery slope" argument doesn't really doesn't hold a lot of water, especially with the direction social attitudes are (unfortunately) moving.  Most "gays" have no problem getting served at restaurants and such.

I'm convinced most of the people filing these lawsuits could easily find another baker or such willing to cater to them - what's going on is the targeting of businesses owned by Christians opposed to homosexual activity for destruction by activists. 

 

In fact, the couple who sued the baker did find another bakery which would and did make their cake. They had cake at their wedding.

[Peace]

So called "gay marriage" has only existed at all in this country extremely recently, so the "slippery slope" argument doesn't really doesn't hold a lot of water, especially with the direction social attitudes are (unfortunately) moving.  Most "gays" have no problem getting served at restaurants and such.

I'm convinced most of the people filing these lawsuits could easily find another baker or such willing to cater to them - what's going on is the targeting of businesses owned by Christians opposed to homosexual activity for destruction by activists. 

 

They might not have problems getting served at most restaurants. But they might run into some problems getting served at a restaurant owned by a couple such as the one who refused to make them a cake. And if other people have a right to eat at the restaurant then I believe that a gay couple should as well, because sitting down for a cheeseburger has nothing to do with religion. The point is that we do not want to encourage people to use religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate in areas that have nothing to do with the expression of one's religion. There could be a slippery slope there, I think. You could end up with some folks saying things like "Well, serving gay people at my restaurant is not consistent with my religion" in the same manner that the people here said "Well, baking a wedding cake for gay people is not consistent with my religion."

Lets say that another gay couple who just happens to love chocolate walk in to the same bakery and say "please bake us a simple chocolate cake that we will eat after dinner tonight." Can the owners of the bakery refuse them?

[Credo in Deum]

They might not have problems getting served at most restaurants. But they might run into some problems getting served at a restaurant owned by a couple such as the one who refused to make them a cake. And if other people have a right to eat at the restaurant then I believe that a gay couple should as well, because sitting down for a cheeseburger has nothing to do with religion. The point is that we do not want to encourage people to use religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate in areas that have nothing to do with the expression of one's religion. There could be a slippery slope there, I think. You could end up with some folks saying things like "Well, serving gay people at my restaurant is not consistent with my religion" in the same manner that the people here said "Well, baking a wedding cake for gay people is not consistent with my religion."

Lets say that another gay couple who just happens to love chocolate walk in to the same bakery and say "please bake us a simple chocolate cake that we will eat after dinner tonight." Can the owners of the bakery refuse them?

The reality is a heterosexual couple looking for a cake for a gay wedding would have also been denied service had they made it known what the cake was for.  This has been the policy of many Christian businesses.  This bakery did not discriminate against gays, it discriminated against an event which went against their beliefs.  In the same way they would discriminate against Planned (un)Parenthood if they had requested a cake for one of their events, or if a Pornography provider had requested a cake for one of their events. 

Businesses have and should always have the right to do this.  They, however,  do not have a right to not serve someone because they're gay and that is something I think all of us can agree on.  If a gay couple wanted a birthday cake, then they should be served.  A wedding cake? No.

And for those who think they hold some moral high ground because they closed a small business for a false social justice reason while ruining an entire family's business and livelyhood over a cake? well you seriously have your priorities all out of whack.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

The reality is a heterosexual couple looking for a cake for a gay wedding would have also been denied service had they made it known what the cake was for.  This has been the policy of many Christian businesses.  This bakery did not discriminate against gays, it discriminated against an event which went against their beliefs.  In the same way they would discriminate against Planned (un)Parenthood if they had requested a cake for one of their events, or if a Pornography provider had requested a cake for one of their events. 

Businesses have and should always have the right to do this.  They, however,  do not have a right to not serve someone because they're gay and that is something I think all of us can agree on.  If a gay couple wanted a birthday cake, then they should be served.  A wedding cake? No.

And for those who think they hold some moral high ground because they closed a small business for a false social justice reason while ruining an entire family's business and livelyhood over a cake? well you seriously have your priorities all out of whack.

Well. I am not so sure that everyone here would agree with that!

I think it is tough to make an argument that there was not discrimination against gays. If person A walks into a cake shop and says "please give me a cake with 'wedding' written on it" and is granted and then person B walks into a cake shop and says "please give me a cake with 'wedding' written on it" and is denied, then person A and person B have been treated differently.

The question is when the discrimination is justifiable. In the case where taking the action would cause the seller to act inconsistently with his religious convictions we say that the discrimination is justified. In the case where taking the action would not cause the seller to act inconsistently with his religious convictions we say that the discrimination is not justified.

The problem then becomes - where and how do we draw the line? What if someone honestly and sincerely believes that their religion mandates that gay couples should not celebrate birthdays together? I am guessing that a few of the 3 million or so protestant denominations out there has something along those lines in their materials. Can the seller say "sorry, no birthday cakes either!" in that situation?

Personally, I feel that the couple should have a right to refuse making a gay "wedding" cake. But I am a little worried about where else that could go. What if a gay couple had come in to buy paper towel? Can the store owner say "Hmm. You guys look gay. What is this paper towel for? A wedding? Sorry. My religion forbids gay weddings and I cannot help anything that would further that. Please buy it somewhere else."?

I think that would be going a bit too far. . . but I struggle to see how it is logically much different than refusing to bake a cake.

[Yaatee]

 

 

The American Messenger

21 hrs · 

State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K - Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service. In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

Ore. Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbians

They are no longer legally allowed to speak out.

DAILYSIGNAL.COM

 

Like · Comment · Share · 39865457

It's  the law in Oregon.  The fine strikes me as being extreme.  But, Oregon is Oregon.  The Catholic Church, or whoever wants to represent the couple, can take it to the Oregon State Supreme Court.  This might happen elsewhere, also, as in the conservative Deep South, where a baker refuses to make a cake for an inter-racial wedding, but which the state now says is legal. The baker supplies the cake and damages. 

[Credo in Deum]

 

I guess I'm not seeing the problem.  Companies should be allowed to discriminate against events which go against their beliefs and their companies core values.  Gay bakeries are not prosecuted when someone wants a cake that goes against their beliefs and are denied service.  Rather when this happens people all of a sudden put on their thinking caps and see that the gay bakeries are refusing service for an event which goes against their beliefs and not refusing service based on the individuals sexuality.  Yet when the situation is reversed its a hate crime.  Hypocrisy at its finniest, yet you don't see any Christians or anti gay marriage people asking for those companies to close and pay 135k in emotional damages.

In the end all companies should continue having the right to refuse service for events.  Not allowing companies this right is fundamentally wrong.  As long as the situation shows what was being denied was an event then the company should suffer no legal fines or penalties regardless of what product was being denied, cakes, paper towels, urinal cakes, chairs, etc.  It really is that simple.  

  

Edited July 4, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

 

I guess I'm not seeing the problem.  Companies should be allowed to discriminate against events which go against their beliefs and their companies core values.  Gay bakeries are not prosecuted when someone wants a cake that goes against their beliefs.  Rather when this happens people all of a sudden put on their thinking caps and see that the gay bakeries are refusing service for an event which goes against their beliefs and not refusing service based on the individuals sexuality.  Yet when the situation is reversed its a hate crime.  Hypocrisy at its finniest, yet you don't see any Christians or anti gay marriage people asking for those companies to close and pay 135k in emotional damages.

In the end all companies should continue having the right to refuse service for events.  Not allowing companies this right is fundamentally wrong.  As long as the situation shows what was being denied was an event then the company should suffer no legal fines or penalties.  It really is that simple.

  

Well. Presumably if there were a gay bakery in Oregon that refused to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple then the same penalty would apply. When such a gay bakery comes into existence and acts accordingly we will have a chance to test whether there is or is not hypocrisy there. Are you aware of any specific gay bakery in Oregon that has refused to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple?

I am not so sure if companies should have an absolute right to refuse service for an event. I do not see what would be so different about a company that says "I will not allow you to eat at this restaurant because of your race" and "I will not bake a cake for your wedding because of your race." I don't see what would be fundamentally wrong about refusing either company the right to engage in business.

[Credo in Deum]

Well. Presumably if there were a gay bakery in Oregon that refused to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple then the same penalty would apply. When such a gay bakery comes into existence and acts accordingly we will have a chance to test whether there is or is not hypocrisy there. Are you aware of any specific gay bakery in Oregon that has refused to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple?

I am not so sure if companies should have an absolute right to refuse service for an event. I do not see what would be so different about a company that says "I will not allow you to eat at this restaurant because of your race" and "I will not bake a cake for your wedding because of your race." I don't see what would be fundamentally wrong about refusing either company the right to engage in business.

In Oregon none that I know of, but you can YouTube gay bakeries refusing service to a straight man for a cake he wanted made about traditional marriage.

It's different since the company didn't refuse service to gay people, it refused service for an event where they didn't not agree with what the customer called a marriage.  It is different since this same bakery would have served them if they had asked for other services.  Your example doesn't indicate that.  If the bakery was discriminating against homosexuals it wouldn't have served them anything for any reasons.  

 

[Winchester]

So what happens if she ignores the judge, doesn't show up to court, talks all she wants, and keeps running her business? Obviously nothing will happen to her, because we live in a civilized society where armed men will not force her to comply with demands of service.

[dUSt]

So am I not allowed to refuse to DJ a rap show with excessive profanity anymore? Is my DJ business no longer allowed to determine which events I can or cannot provide services for? Seems wack.

[Yaatee]

So am I not allowed to refuse to DJ a rap show with excessive profanity anymore? Is my DJ business no longer allowed to determine which events I can or cannot provide services for? Seems wack.

Well, I'm sorry, dUSt, but I have to agree with you, , that it does--seem wack.  My daughter, a v opinionated lady and not usually on your side either, said, "After all, it's not medical insurance."  There's going to have to be a lot of shakedown on all of this.  I do think that a few state supreme court cases might clear the air and the precedents.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Yaatee

[Gabriela]

The root of the problem here is that she's running a private business that has somehow been construed as a "public service".

She's not the freaking government. She has no obligation to serve anyone.

[Luigi]

Lets say that another gay couple who just happens to love chocolate walk in to the same bakery and say "please bake us a simple chocolate cake that we will eat after dinner tonight." Can the owners of the bakery refuse them?

The couple who sued had done business with the baker previously. She had always served them "a simple chocolate cake that we will eat after dinner tonight." It was only when they specified a cake for their wedding that she declined to fulfill that request. 

The whole thing looks like a money-grab on the part of the couple.

[Yaatee]

The above is how to say "Bye Felicia" to litigious gays. Or anybody else who tries to get the law to force you to violate your conscience. You want some freedom to marry? Have some freedom of me expressing my self by donating your money to a cause you can't stand. 

It will work every time and its completely legal.

Look Nihil, another lifehack. I came up with this and the airline work-around in the same 12 hour period. God bless America.

 

ETA: p.s. also, not sure if serving cake is required for a legally valid wedding. I'm leaning towards "yes."

Yes.  Chocolate. And a piece for everyone.

[Kateri89]

And this is one of the problems - freedom of expression should freedom of expression, no matter what the topic or which state one is in. At the moment, it seems like what's legal here is not legal there.

To me, the larger issues are:

1. The fine. I can understand some sort of fine if the baker has broken the law. But $135K? The original request was for $150K, so the judge-mediator-whoever gave the baker a 10% discount - but, big deal! How does a $135K make it right? Just how insulting was the insult? And how does $135K make the insult go away? Will the insulted couple use it to pay for therapy, or what?

I've always wondered about this.  How does anyone place a monetary value on emotional suffering?

Furthermore, just because the judge ordered the couple to not speak about this does not mean that other people have the same gag order placed on them.  We may not know all of the details of the case firsthand but that doesn't mean that we can't show our support for the bakery owners.  Use social media and be a voice for them since apparently they don't have their first amendment rights.