The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[auditor0007]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

The judgement was too harsh in my view and will not serve the interests of anyone.

 

[bendog]

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

 

[Statistikhengst]

PS..refusing to attend an event is not discrimination.

PS. Baking a cake for someone is not attendance at any function.

My Lord, how Cons are just totally brain-dead in just about every possible way.

 

[saveliberty]

Where does the Bible state, thou shalt not bake a cake for thine woman who lieth with another woman?

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

A woman having sex with a woman is sin, asking a third party to participate in celebrating that sin is a violation of the third party's rights.

 

[Faun]

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

If you're going to use the Bible as an authority, you might want to check what it has to say about marriage and fornication.

You can't have it both ways, bub.

I'm not the one using the Bible as an authority. Sweet Cakes was. I'm merely pointing out their authoritative source doesn't defend their actions.

Translation: you are a hypocrite who got caught.

Not so unless you can show where baking a cake is a sin, which you can't.

 

[Spare_change]

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Baking a cake does not equal homosexuality.

You're right ... but baking a cake in support of a gay wedding equals a sin.

 

[ChrisL]

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The right wing has hilarious priorities and views of what an attack on freedom is, all I see is the right wing clinging and desperately defending homophobes to paint an "attack on freedom" while millions lack healthcare, while millions are thrown into a cycle of debt due to a broken higher level education system, where the lgbt community has been demonized consistently and attacked throughout american history, same with minorities, how can one be free if they lack healthcare? Are stuck in debt? The right wing is a pathetic joke.

 

[boedicca]

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

B'loney. A baker can't sell something unless he makes it, or somebody working for him makes it.

I want the law to ensure Equal Protection, not to pit One Identity Group against Another.

The only way to ensure that is to guarantee an individual's Right To Be Left Alone.

Positive Rights violate this concept - which is why the Founders specified only Negative Rights.

 

[paperview]

Actually moron, the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation.

You see that everybody? Unny here thought the foundation of legalized same sex marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges -

was based on the CRA's Public Accommodation Laws.

Is that funny or what?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

There is no fallacy. That's the law, bozo.

The law is you must use Ad Hominem fallacy?

If you say so...

 

[Esmeralda]

snip:
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple

By Todd Starnes

Published January 21, 2014
FoxNews.com



FILE - In this undated photograph Aaron Klein stands behind the counter of his Oregon bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Since this photo was taken the store has closed. The Kleins now operate their bakery business out of their home. (Sweet Cakes by Melissa)

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.



“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.


The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.

The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:

all of it here
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple Fox News

You are an idiot. Their bakery was not a private religious institution: it was a commercial shop meant to serve the public. Their denying the lesbian couple's request for a wedding cake is the same as blacks being refused service, the elderly or handicapped being refused sevice, etc. They deserved to lose their business because their bigotry and hatred caused them to violate other people's civil rights.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Do muslim owned businesses have to serve gays? When will a muslim business be fined for refusing service to gays?

the problem is the hypocrisy of PC. we can offend Christians, whites, males; but we can't offend gays, muslims, blacks, hispanics, etc.

Well, when such a case happens, we will see. Can you provide a link to such a case? I would be happy to look at it.

 

[ChrisL]

[

There is no fallacy. That's the law, bozo.

The law is you must use Ad Hominem fallacy?

If you say so...

No, the law is as I stated. Just because you feel that the government is persecuting you does not mean that is the case. YOU are not the focus of this law and neither is hurting you. It is to protect. Now, this law applies equally to everyone. Therefore, there is NO religious persecution. If want delusional laws based on your delusional views, you should move to Iran. You would love it there, I'm sure.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Bible state, thou shalt not bake a cake for thine woman who lieth with another woman?

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

A woman having sex with a woman is sin, asking a third party to participate in celebrating that sin is a violation of the third party's rights.

They weren't asking them to celebrate them having sex either.

 

[Esmeralda]

When Jesus fed the multitude with the miracle of the loaves and fishes,

I wonder if he had his disciples screen the crowd for gays?

No fish sandwich for you!!!!!!!!

lol, fake Christianity is so lame.

 

[koshergrl]

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

 

[Faun]

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Baking a cake does not equal homosexuality.

You're right ... but baking a cake in support of a gay wedding equals a sin.

Apparently, "your bible" and the actual Bible don't read the same way.

 

[Esmeralda]

this op should really be IGNORED. their mission here is to stir up shit. nothing more

 

[Statistikhengst]

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

And G-d speaks into your ear and tells you when a law is "illegal"?

ROFLMAO!