The case of a christian cake making couple refusing to make a wedding cake for lesbian couple in Oregon has made the news recently:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-fined-same-sex-wedding_n_7718540.html
That’s the HuffPo’s account, a publication that I find to be quite a crappy rag, made worse by endorsement of all things Chopra and Woo. There is much celebration of the ruling in some liberal circles, and I’m going to put a few general thoughts here before I continue:
- There are anti-discrimination laws in Oregon.
- The cake makers violated those laws.
- The couple should have a nice cake.
- Don’t pick a career that will conflict with your religious views (faith healing MD, Amish Arline Pilot, etc)
That being said, $135k damages for not getting a fucking cake?? And against a small business of people who don’t have the same religious views as me but seem pretty decent otherwise. Sure they could learn a little tolerance and empathy, but couldn’t we all? Speaking of which, here is a list of the ‘physical harm’ caused by not receiving the cake. (quick side note, I’m sure that friction with non-accepting factions of society is terrible and persistent and I wish it didn’t happen, but this is about NOT GETTING A CAKE):
“Mental Rape”? “Loss of appetite” and ‘Weight gain”? 88 symptoms in total. Have a read.
I think liberals need not hold up these folks as champions of equality. I’m calling bullshit on the monetary damages and the symptoms as well.
I wish the lesbian couple had forgiven the christian cake-makers, instead showing them their shared humanity and the positive values they can hold. Instead we fan the flames of the culture war and give the religious right something legitimate to gripe about; I can see no way that the damages are legitimate or that the ruling is in any way proportionate / fair. Legals scholars (we have a coupe I think) – please correct me if I have misunderstood any of this.
Small correction. It’s not legal for a public food vendor to refuse service to a customer merely for being obese. Businesses can refuse to serve individual patrons due to an individual’s unruly or disruptive behavior but not because of any physical attribute.
Nightclubs and dress codes?
I can’t disprove anything on the list and neither can you. You need take it up with the State of Oregon. They’re the ones who decided the damages were deserved.
Sure, that’s right. Being called a bigot or a homophobe is so so so much worse than being the victim of actual bigotry and homophobia.
Idiot.
That’s individual disruptive behavior, not an inherent physical condition.
So if they’d put “nightly visits from Satan when no-one is looking” you’d be down with that? You are actually using a line of reasoning popular with Joe Gallien. Well done.
Adapa,
Sorry KeithS, White socks and sandals are still a “no”.
You’re making a ridiculous strawman argument. Slimy Sal would approve.
BTW the claimants were under no obligation to demonstrate every last one of those to the court. The offer was made to supply supporting medical documentation if the court requested it. For all we both know the court could have made the ruling based on just one or two of the obvious, well supported ones.
Let’s stick to the facts. Your criteria was:
“I can’t disprove anything on the list and neither can you.”
Can you disprove “nightly visits from satan”? I can’t, and that’s might be why law sometimes works on “balance of probabilities” / “reasonable doubt” . Its your argument – not my fault its utter crap. Throwing around “Strawman” doesn’t help you, you set a criteria that is imbecilic.
So you’re still fine with 88 aliments and $135k? Maybe some jail time would be in order too?
It was up to the Oregon court to decide on the legitimacy of the complaints. They apparently did so to their satisfaction. Again, if you have a bitch take it up with them.
It wouldn’t hurt. Read the trial final that hotshoe provided here. It included a summary of the testimony and actions by both sides. See what absolute dicks the Kleins were at every turn, like posting the address of the couple along with anti-gay slurs on facebook, reporting the story to the local Christian news which prompted hate mail and threats to the couple. Then tell me they didn’t deserve to get hit with the punishment.
We already know you won’t/can’t read for comprehension so I’m not surprised you get this wrong along with everything else.
Yes, this case was specifically triggered by the shitty and unprovoked conduct of Aaron Klein, who did say they were abominations after he told them he wouldn’t make their cake. There was no call for him to do that, and the two women were upset enough about him that they were motivated to file a complaint with the state board.
But the state board didn’t act against the Kleins merely because Aaron is an asshole, the board acted because the Kleins (reportedly) discriminated against the prospective cake buyers. After fair investigation (and after a pattern of the Kleins continuing unprovoked harassment of the two women with anti-gay posts on their facebook pages, etc) the state found that the Kleins had indeed committed the discrimination as originally alleged, the Kleins were happy and not at all remorseful about having done it, and the Kleins’ behavior caused evident harm physical and mental to the two women. Ergo, the state decided on damages against the Kleins to be awarded to their victims.
We have two separate things here; one is the trigger for the initial complaint to the state board, and the other is the investigation and evidence upon which the state based its damage award.
Of course both things are linked by Aaron Klein’s assholery, but that’s no surprise. Such a loving christian.
Well, I do seem to be experiencing some physical pain right now. 😉
But on the bright side, now that Adapa has outed me, I can finally show my true colors.
http://cdn.themetapicture.com/media/funny-wedding-cake-decoration-colors-rainbow.jpg
Heh. Good one, Adapa.
I think some of them need to ink that verse across the knuckles of both hands, as a little reminder before they’re tempted to do something judge-y and bigoted.
🙂
Maude, I’d kill for that cake.
Bet the colored sprinkles are inedible, though 🙁
Adapa, that’s not the sole statement on judging in the Bible you know, or even in the New Testament, or even from that same passage in the New Testament!
But Adapa doesn’t judge. Oh no.
Maybe Adapa should take to heart the next portion:
For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
I’m not the clown trying to defend the illegal actions of the Christian homophobic bigots in this case. 🙂
“Judge not” is the one biblical phrase that every rebel knows.
They don’t know the context or what the verse actually means of course but repeating it mindlessly in the face of a Christian is supposed to have some sort of effect like a crucifix to a vampire.
Some how these folks think two magic words taken out of context can shield them from the rest of what the book says.
I find it to be funny how utterly superstitious those that claim to be atheists can be.
peace
PS I’m back to work
Seems pretty straight forward. The Bible commands you to not be judgmental of others. As Christians it’s not in your job description. The task of judging each individual’s worth is reserved for the Big Guy. Unless you have a Bible that says “Judge not except for minorities you personally don’t like, then you’re free to discriminate and trample on their civil rights all you want”.
When you say “the Bible” here, I take it you mean some speech attributed to Jesus in the New Testament? There’s plenty of judging encouraged elsewhere, IIRC, especially in the older book. Even dismemberment of the innocent is smiled on here and there.
My comments show what happens when you read headlines or news summaries.
I’m not sure what I would think if there had been a simple case of refusing to provide a specific product. There have been a fair number of stories involving refusal to provide “offensive” decorations on cakes. Some involving same sex toppers, and some requests obviously intended to offend.
Amen Richard Hughes.
I think at most if there were damages, the couple should sue half the price of a cake, not $125,000. A little mercy is called for, imho.
On the other hand where do Christian businesses draw the line? If you’re a hotel owner, do you refuse people wanting to have an adulterous tryst?
If you’re in the business of making signs or a copy and printing shop, do you refuse to do mass printing of objectionable ISIS literature? I’d probably call the FBI first, though to approve the sale….
Personally, if were a bakery owner, I’d sell to homo couples if it would make me $$$.
I think I found the post at UD that got Adapa so incensed:
Arcatia_bogart: Just because one opponent of Creationism is a reprehensible human being…
Mung: There’s no such thing as a reprehensible human being.
Mung, could you please link to it so that we can all see the context. I doubt very much that I was referring to Adapa.
Acartia, I will stipulate that you were not referring to Adapa. The fact remains that you referred to someone as “a reprehensible human being.” It hardly matters who you were referring to.
My response was as stated, and it follows that no person, “gay” or otherwise, is a reprehensible human being.
Now I can understand why this is a problem for you, in trying to make the case that all Christians hate gays, for if I claim to be a Christian but I do not hate gays, then it follows that either not all Christians hate gays or I am not a Christian.
You seem to be of the sort who claims that I hate gays. Make your case.