Bakery Owners Refuse to Pay Gay Extortionists

[paddymurphy]

Maybe, maybe not. They are planning on fighting this in court. Personally, I have no issue with same sex marriage. But I do have a problem with the excessive fine and the fascist "gag order" in this case.

I also have a problem with a potentially serious conflict of interest that exists.

The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In April, a judge for the agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.

Emails Raise Questions About Bias in Sweet Cakes Ruling
​

How is the fine "excessive" when a Christian couple in Oregon got over 100K more for the same kind of business discrimination.

Both fines were excessive. Did the commission issue a "gag order" in the other case too?

They issued no gag order in this case.

Read it yourself. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Page 43.

Looks like a gag order to me...

Then you have no clue what a gag order looks like. All that it does is tell them to cease and desist from advertising or telling people that they will discriminate in violation of the law. If they had refused service to an African American and the order directed them to cease and desist from telling people they will not serve African Americans, is that a gag order?

 

[martybegan]

it's using a neutron bomb to kill a gnat.

PA laws were designed to fight pervasive widespread discrimination that took a whole class of people and made them 2nd class citizens. It wasn't designed to punish people for hurting other people's feelings, and what we have here is nothing but that.

i don't think people who lived through jim crow would agree with you, marty. embarrassing people and forcing them out of your business does the same thing as it did back in the day.

if you go into a service business you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. in fact, i'd apply the same standards as i would apply to employment discrimination ..... .you can refuse to serve someone for any reason or no reason but not for a discriminatory/illegal reason.

You can't compare Jim Crow, which WAS systemic, mandated discrimination with a single bakery not wanting to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

So the response to this, by your standard, is ruining people via government action, because you don't like their viewpoints? And spare me the "fairness" crap.

Embarrassment is not harm. If it seems that way, then go grow a freaking spine.

the minute you allow people to put signs on their businesses saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays", you've created a de facto system of segregation.

or you let people know what stores not to patronize, even if the refusal does not apply to them.

Let the market handle it. There is no reason for commissions that can ruin a person over not baking a cake.

again, you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. You can like that or not. You can disagree with that or not. But it's the law. and like the county clerk in Kentucky, if you can't live with that, you're in the wrong line of work.

Government is different than a a business. two different arguments.

Davis is wrong, but I admit I like watching people force government go through the motions to impose its will, instead of people just waffling under.

and your point of "its the law deal with it," is moot, because it's a stupid law, or at least its current use is stupid.

and its not "you can't discriminate", its "you can't discriminate against a group that is currently popular". fixed it.

 

[martybegan]

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

He can't answer because he knows the answer is no, they should not be forced to sell the statue. Just like the baker should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.

false I will not answer the question in it's rigged and unrealistic form.
trying to shame , bully, cajole me into it' .besides being laughably ineffective and immature, it point up the subject of conservative tyranny extremely well.

Wussy.

 

[jillian]

i don't think people who lived through jim crow would agree with you, marty. embarrassing people and forcing them out of your business does the same thing as it did back in the day.

if you go into a service business you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. in fact, i'd apply the same standards as i would apply to employment discrimination ..... .you can refuse to serve someone for any reason or no reason but not for a discriminatory/illegal reason.

You can't compare Jim Crow, which WAS systemic, mandated discrimination with a single bakery not wanting to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

So the response to this, by your standard, is ruining people via government action, because you don't like their viewpoints? And spare me the "fairness" crap.

Embarrassment is not harm. If it seems that way, then go grow a freaking spine.

the minute you allow people to put signs on their businesses saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays", you've created a de facto system of segregation.

or you let people know what stores not to patronize, even if the refusal does not apply to them.

Let the market handle it. There is no reason for commissions that can ruin a person over not baking a cake.

again, you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. You can like that or not. You can disagree with that or not. But it's the law. and like the county clerk in Kentucky, if you can't live with that, you're in the wrong line of work.

Government is different than a a business. two different arguments.

Davis is wrong, but I admit I like watching people force government go through the motions to impose its will, instead of people just waffling under.

and your point of "its the law deal with it," is moot, because it's a stupid law, or at least its current use is stupid.

and its not "you can't discriminate", its "you can't discriminate against a group that is currently popular". fixed it.

no it isn't. that's rand paul's wish... that different standards apply to government and private business. reality: if that were the case, the lunch counters in the south would still be whites only.

you're wrong on this one, kiddo.

 

[jillian]

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

ALL Public Accommodation laws are u just and improper.

Right. It is much more just and proper to allow a business to benefit from all of the protections society gives it, for which every member of that society pays, and let that business refuse service to some of those in society.

So you would force a Catholic store to sell a Jesus figure to a Satanist who would perform a profane ritual on it, and tells the store's owner he/she would be doing it?

why would you know they're a Satanist? you'd simply have to sell a statute.

it's a statute, not a religious being.

 

[martybegan]

You can't compare Jim Crow, which WAS systemic, mandated discrimination with a single bakery not wanting to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

So the response to this, by your standard, is ruining people via government action, because you don't like their viewpoints? And spare me the "fairness" crap.

Embarrassment is not harm. If it seems that way, then go grow a freaking spine.

the minute you allow people to put signs on their businesses saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays", you've created a de facto system of segregation.

or you let people know what stores not to patronize, even if the refusal does not apply to them.

Let the market handle it. There is no reason for commissions that can ruin a person over not baking a cake.

again, you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. You can like that or not. You can disagree with that or not. But it's the law. and like the county clerk in Kentucky, if you can't live with that, you're in the wrong line of work.

Government is different than a a business. two different arguments.

Davis is wrong, but I admit I like watching people force government go through the motions to impose its will, instead of people just waffling under.

and your point of "its the law deal with it," is moot, because it's a stupid law, or at least its current use is stupid.

and its not "you can't discriminate", its "you can't discriminate against a group that is currently popular". fixed it.

no it isn't. that's rand paul's wish... that different standards apply to government and private business. reality: if that were the case, the lunch counters in the south would still be whites only.

you're wrong on this one, kiddo.

Those lunch counters were white only by government mandate.

and those are just an easy symbol, the real discrimination was in lack of access to things like education, property, and ownership of businesses.

that you want everyone to live exactly the way you want them to, and have government force that, shows either narcissism, fascism, or a combination of both.

 

[daws101]

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

false
it's a rigged question
that is my answer.

Coward. If you are going to force people to perform commerce, it's in for a penny, in for a pound. You just know the answer you want to give makes you look like a moron.

false the only person who is a fool here is you, the asker.
if the business is open to the public the owner/ operator cannot discriminate on religious grounds his or the customer's. end of story

 

[martybegan]

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

ALL Public Accommodation laws are u just and improper.

Right. It is much more just and proper to allow a business to benefit from all of the protections society gives it, for which every member of that society pays, and let that business refuse service to some of those in society.

So you would force a Catholic store to sell a Jesus figure to a Satanist who would perform a profane ritual on it, and tells the store's owner he/she would be doing it?

why would you know they're a Satanist? you'd simply have to sell a statute.

it's a statute, not a religious being.

so the person should be forced to sell the statue even if they know it will be used in something that is against their beliefs?

 

[martybegan]

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

false
it's a rigged question
that is my answer.

Coward. If you are going to force people to perform commerce, it's in for a penny, in for a pound. You just know the answer you want to give makes you look like a moron.

false the only person who is a fool here is you, the asker.
if the business is open to the public the owner/ operator cannot discriminate on religious grounds his or the customer's. end of story

So your answer is Yes, the government should punish the store owner if they refuse to sell the Jesus statue to the Satanist.

 

[Zander]

How is the fine "excessive" when a Christian couple in Oregon got over 100K more for the same kind of business discrimination.

Both fines were excessive. Did the commission issue a "gag order" in the other case too?

They issued no gag order in this case.

Read it yourself. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Page 43.

Looks like a gag order to me...

Then you have no clue what a gag order looks like. All that it does is tell them to cease and desist from advertising or telling people that they will discriminate in violation of the law. If they had refused service to an African American and the order directed them to cease and desist from telling people they will not serve African Americans, is that a gag order?

Let's see....

If the Kleins continue to proclaim their unwillingness to celebrate gay marriage in their business activities, they’re in violation of the order.

yeah, it's a gag order.

 

[daws101]

Well. Look at you!

Most of my State legislators' staffs probably know my phone number by now. It shows up on thier office phones weekly. Some like that and others don't.

they most likely call you the crank or raving nut job.

 

[daws101]

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

false
it's a rigged question
that is my answer.

Coward. If you are going to force people to perform commerce, it's in for a penny, in for a pound. You just know the answer you want to give makes you look like a moron.

false the only person who is a fool here is you, the asker.
if the business is open to the public the owner/ operator cannot discriminate on religious grounds his or the customer's. end of story

So your answer is Yes, the government should punish the store owner if they refuse to sell the Jesus statue to the Satanist.

false
my answer is: if the business is open to the public the owner/ operator cannot discriminate on religious grounds his or the customer's. end of story
no force involved.
if the owner has strong religious convictions he should go private ...
problem solved.

 

[daws101]

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

ALL Public Accommodation laws are u just and improper.

Right. It is much more just and proper to allow a business to benefit from all of the protections society gives it, for which every member of that society pays, and let that business refuse service to some of those in society.

So you would force a Catholic store to sell a Jesus figure to a Satanist who would perform a profane ritual on it, and tells the store's owner he/she would be doing it?

why would you know they're a Satanist? you'd simply have to sell a statute.

it's a statute, not a religious being.

so the person should be forced to sell the statue even if they know it will be used in something that is against their beliefs?

they're belief is superseded by the PA laws.

 

[jillian]

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

ALL Public Accommodation laws are u just and improper.

Right. It is much more just and proper to allow a business to benefit from all of the protections society gives it, for which every member of that society pays, and let that business refuse service to some of those in society.

So you would force a Catholic store to sell a Jesus figure to a Satanist who would perform a profane ritual on it, and tells the store's owner he/she would be doing it?

why would you know they're a Satanist? you'd simply have to sell a statute.

it's a statute, not a religious being.

so the person should be forced to sell the statue even if they know it will be used in something that is against their beliefs?

again, why would they know it's going to be used that way?

 

[jillian]

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

false
it's a rigged question
that is my answer.

Coward. If you are going to force people to perform commerce, it's in for a penny, in for a pound. You just know the answer you want to give makes you look like a moron.

false the only person who is a fool here is you, the asker.
if the business is open to the public the owner/ operator cannot discriminate on religious grounds his or the customer's. end of story

So your answer is Yes, the government should punish the store owner if they refuse to sell the Jesus statue to the Satanist.

false
my answer is: if the business is open to the public the owner/ operator cannot discriminate on religious grounds his or the customer's. end of story
no force involved.
if the owner has strong religious convictions he should go private ...
problem solved.

there is no religion that requires you to be a bigot.

 

[Anathema]

there is no religion that requires you to be a bigot.

Not necessarily true. More importantly most Morality certainly DOES require discrimination.

 

[jillian]

there is no religion that requires you to be a bigot.

Not necessarily true. More importantly most Morality certainly DOES require discrimination.

that's silly, especially in this context.

 

[Anathema]

that's silly, especially in this context.

Why do you say that? True Morality REQUIRES that one avoid dealing with the Immoral masses as much as possible.

 

[NLT]

Like those special snowflakes that run a business but refuse to obey their state's business laws.

like those special homos that could've found a bakery to bake them a wedding cake and went out of thier way to find a christian one to target.

 

[paddymurphy]

there is no religion that requires you to be a bigot.

Not necessarily true. More importantly most Morality certainly DOES require discrimination.

Discrimination against conduct, not status. You can refuse to serve a person who does not wear a shirt; you can refuse to serve a person who comes in with a shirt that says, **** You; you can refuse to serve a person who has committed a crime. You cannot refuse to serve someone over something immutable like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, national origin. You cannot discriminate based on a chosen characteristic, religion, because we value religious freedom.