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

[ogibillm]

They choose to press charges for this horrific trauma.

They don't have to.

This selective passion for the law is terribly transparent.

.

They didn't "press charges."

They filed a complaint with the Labor Board.

The Kleins were breaking the law.

Great, they chose to file a complaint, thanks.

.

you're right. they should have quietly stood by and let themselves be discriminated against.

things are so much easier when people know their place and don't make a stink for their rights, isn't it?

 

[Mac1958]

They choose to press charges for this horrific trauma.

They don't have to.

This selective passion for the law is terribly transparent.

.

They didn't "press charges."

They filed a complaint with the Labor Board.

The Kleins were breaking the law.

Great, they chose to file a complaint, thanks.

.

you're right. they should have quietly stood by and let themselves be discriminated against.

things are so much easier when people know their place and don't make a stink for their rights, isn't it?

I pointed out a fact. They chose to see this person punished.

They could have just done what I and the lesbian Executive Director of New Jersey Pride would have suggested:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

.

 

[Faun]

In America, you're not supposed to be punished for not wanting to support or service a ceremony that you find offensive. We're not talking about refusing to serve someone a burger or rent them a room. We're talking about not wanting to support a ceremony that violates your religious beliefs. In America, you're supposed to be free to decline to be involved with a ceremony if you find the ceremony offensive.

Nothing in the Bible says the ceremony is a sin or that baking a cake for a ceremony is a sin.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

I wouldnt pay them a dime. I would sue the gay couple for damages and compensation. It is they who forced a person against their religious belief.

 

[paperview]

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.

I wouldnt pay them a dime. I would sue the gay couple for damages and compensation. It is they who forced a person against their religious belief.

lol

Let us know how it works out.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

I wouldnt pay them a dime. I would sue the gay couple for damages and compensation. It is they who forced a person against their religious belief.

so then you'd be out $135k and lawyer fees for the charlatan that would take on the obvious loser lawsuit.

 

[Seawytch]

They can appeal the ruling I'm sure. Heck, it might even work it's way to the SCOTUS. How'd that work out last time? Oh yeah...

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple

 

[Silhouette]

said...

1. Kennedy as a Justice by definition should not have a predictable stance.

2. That you feel you can predict him is troubling.

3. Perhaps the six or so adult children raised by gay couples who wrote amicus briefs against gay marriage could petition a case on behalf of children.

4. "Gay" is a behavior. So for that matter any citizen who feels they have a right as a voter to regulate any behaviors (since gay ones aren't more or less special than any others due to equality) might bring a case for suppression of their civil rights.

5. Texas may bring a case for suppression of its civil rights to govern by majority rule.

6. And then there's the aspect of the 1st Amendment and the 9th which says that no other contemporary addition to the Constitution may suppress rights enjoyed in another part.

7. And then there's the problem that the new addition of "behaviors equal race' to the Constitution, which suppresses voters rights to self-govern with regards to behaviors (the only reason TO self-govern) was done by the judicial branch when the legislative is the only one with power to do that.

I'd like to see your rebuttal to 1-7 Frigid.

said..

1) Should not have a "predictable stance", what does that mean? I want to say, surely they should interpret the constitution in a predictable manner because the constitution should be quite predictable in the first place. What worries me a lot is that 4 Supreme Court justices think the 14th Amendment is a load of carp.

2) Why would it be worrying that you could predict what someone does?

3) Six or so children of those in gay couples, wow, so, because of six children in the US, all gay people should be denied equal rights? Hmm, that's interesting.
So, I would take from this stance that you too don't like rights either.

4) ""Gay" is a behavior"? Playing basketball is a behavior, does that mean anyone who plays basketball should be denied the right to choose the consenting adult they wish to marry?

5) Texas can do what it likes. It won't make it to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is clear. States get POWERS (not rights, states don't have rights) that the Constitution hasn't given to the federal govt. The 14th Amendment equality of the law clearly states that the federal govt and the state govts CAN'T treat people in a manner which isn't equal to the law.

So anything Texas does will get taken down time and again, they'll only win with judges who are in their favor automatically. But they're not going to get through the whole federal court system AND be accepted by the Supreme Court.

6) Anyone who thinks your freedom of religion is being suppressed by people marrying is going to fall flat on their face. It's an idiotic argument at best.

7) again, you go off on "behavior", which doesn't make any difference. All individuals should have the right to choose the consenting person of their choice to marry, that's equality under the law (within reason, incest is considered harmful to potential children so is not allowed).

answers...

1. The Constitution is predictable, which makes me wonder why the judicial branch thinks it can make brand new additions to it where just their favorite sexual orientations in minority get protection from majority regulation on marriage while other sexual orientations like polyamory and incest are discriminated against. The legislature may only make changes to the Constitution. So either each and every conceivable sexual orientation got the right to marry last Friday, or none of them did. Any other set of conditions would be a brand new addition to the Constitution; which is forbidden by SCOTUS to do.

2. You're an idiot. If you don't understand why its bad to be able to predict with clockwork regularity what a Justice will do...especially a 'swing' Justice like Kennedy who's claim is that he is impartial and middle road.. then you failed your poli-sci class. You may enjoy biased justice. But the founding fathers didn't. And it was the reason they wrote the bylaws of this country exactly like they did. The dismissiveness with how people take the Supreme Court today and their decorum (Ginsburg & Kagan performing gay marriages as federal entities as the question was pending) is stunning.

3. You seem to promote in each of your appeal's cases that just one couple should not be denied "gay marriage". So when its children, six aren't enough to be spokespeople for their movement? You really are a hypocrite aren't you?

4. Playing basketball isn't marriage. More to the point, it isn't parenting. Gay marriage harms children in that it structurally-deprives them of either a father or a mother. Marriage was the incentive program for a father and mother, grandfather/grandmother in the home for the best benefit of children. Gay marriage shot a torpedo through that and turned marriage into a circus by for and about adults only.

5. Yes, Texas can do what it wants and contrary to your hopes, the "rule of four" will make sure the case comes before Kennedy again. Did you forget about the "rule of four"?

6. Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus says that any Christian who enables the spread of a homosexual culture is doomed to hell for eternity. It is one and the same as soul-death. You have a little hurdle dearie...two of them rather...the 1st Amendment which guarantees EACH INDIVIDUAL Christian (it says nothing about "churches") the right to exercise their religion and the 9th Amendment which says that no one part of the Constitution may squelch another. Your negative prognosis on Christian's merits is "silly at best"..

7. So you believe that polygamy and incest marriage are already legal. OK, got that out of you finally. Unless it's found that last Friday's Ruling was a new legislation of the Constitution: and therefore unconstitutional by the judicial branch. And therefore no more binding than a piece of stale chewing gum..

 

[Silhouette]

They can appeal the ruling I'm sure. Heck, it might even work it's way to the SCOTUS. How'd that work out last time? Oh yeah...

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple

The rule of four will take it up. Mark my words.

This couple should and must turn the judge in Oregon in to their committee on judicial peformance. A gag order and a suppression of their right to refuse on religious grounds are their ticket to sue this judge once s/he is a private citizen for suppression of civil rights.

 

[AceRothstein]

This thread is too long to go through but has anyone brought up the Jewish bakery-Hitler cake straw man yet?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Those of you with brains might be interested to know that in part the size of the award was based on a prior case -

AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN DISCRIMINATION CASE -

where the CHRISTIAN complainant was awarded almost $350,000 for having been discriminated against because of her religion:

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Legal/docs/FOpdffiles/2012_FOs/Andrew_Engel_38-11.pdf

Read it and weep RWnuts.

Here's where it's referenced in the cake bake case:

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsse... rules on Sweet Cakes discrimination case.pdf

 

[Seawytch]

This thread is too long to go through but has anyone brought up the Jewish bakery-Hitler cake straw man yet?

I think it was a bacon analogy, but yeah...the stupid prevails.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sweet Cakes bakery must pay $135,000 to lesbian couple
Final order Sweet Cakes bakery must pay 135 000 to lesbian couple Local Regional KATU.com - Portland News Sports Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland Oregon

"They've been ordered to pay $135,000 to make up for the emotional damage they caused by telling this couple no."

The Kleins can appeal the ruling. They've already closed their store and now work out of their home by order only, meaning they're no longer a "public accommodation."

The absurd way this order describes the emotional damage done to this couple.

If that gay couple had any decency and common sense, they would have said: "We respect your views" and would have gone to a baker who would have been only too willing and happy to accommodate them.

If those who cheer the the Supreme Court's decision had any decency and common sense, they would not cheer the decision of the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court had any decency and common sense they would not have ruled as they did.

Yes, that gay couple should say " we respect you for hating and discriminating against us. We apologize for making you uncomfortable and thank you for your patriotic and principled stand . We will go elsewhere."

I'm sure the blacks at the lunch counter did the same.

 

[Silhouette]

I think the 1st and 9th Amendments will prevail. Get ready. It's coming..

 

[Faun]

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.

I wouldnt pay them a dime. I would sue the gay couple for damages and compensation. It is they who forced a person against their religious belief.

Baking a cake isn't allowed in which religion?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They can appeal the ruling I'm sure. Heck, it might even work it's way to the SCOTUS. How'd that work out last time? Oh yeah...

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple

The rule of four will take it up. Mark my words.

This couple should and must turn the judge in Oregon in to their committee on judicial peformance. A gag order and a suppression of their right to refuse on religious grounds are their ticket to sue this judge once s/he is a private citizen for suppression of civil rights.

Your inability to use anything like rational thought is remarkable.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think the 1st and 9th Amendments will prevail. Get ready. It's coming..

No, it isn't. You've never been right with a single prediction so why in God's name do you keep trying?

 

[paperview]

They can appeal the ruling I'm sure. Heck, it might even work it's way to the SCOTUS. How'd that work out last time? Oh yeah...

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple

The rule of four will take it up. Mark my words.

This couple should and must turn the judge in Oregon in to their committee on judicial peformance. A gag order and a suppression of their right to refuse on religious grounds are their ticket to sue this judge once s/he is a private citizen for suppression of civil rights.

1. They are not being gagged.

Damn it. Just stop.

2. In April, an administrative law judge was the one who proposed the
damages.

The Bureau of Labor thoroughly reviewed the case and upheld the damage amounts

 

[Plasmaball]

I think the 1st and 9th Amendments will prevail. Get ready. It's coming..

no it isnt

 

[ChrisL]

Although I think that 134,000 dollars (or whatever the amount was exactly) is a bit much, I'm happy that the gay couple won the suit. We are in America, not some 3rd world Muslim country. We don't tolerate discriminating against ONE group of people in this country based upon superstition and fear. If your religious convictions are such that you cannot serve and treat everyone as equals, then you really have no "right" to be in the "public accommodation" business. We are not a theocracy. We are a secular nation and everyone who lives here in America are equals and entitled to the same rights, privileges and accommodations as any other American citizen.

When I put myself in the shoes of a gay person or a black person, I can totally understand why they are upset about this type of thing happening to them. As taxpaying, legal citizens there is absolutely NO reason that they should have to tolerate bad treatment and refusal of service. To me, it's disgusting that people want to treat them as second class citizens.