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.
Yeah, the whole lawsuit based on a friggin’ cake strikes me as absurd, and it’s probably done far more harm than good to the cause of marriage equality. Destroying someone’s business because they pissed you off seems, shall we say, disproportionate.
It’s easier to understand if we first drop the pretense that it was just about a cake.
Anyone who has ever watched The People’s Court or Judge Judy knows it’s never “just about the cake.”
Given the social climate and an administration that may well have wanted to “send a message” I think this may have been an “opportunistic lawsuit”.
Of course, on the other hand, for the wedding cake makers I doubt it was just about a lesbian wedding either.
Similar happened in Northern Ireland Damages were a more reasonable £500. But I think it’s bullshit. There is some evidence that the cake-requestor was going out of his way to make a point. Which slogans would the court uphold as unacceptable? I can think of many. You should have some bloody choice as to what business you take up.
Agreed. A cake baker is not a publisher.
The case began in 2013 when
More than two years later, after attempts by the state to see if there could be a reconciliation between the two sides, and numerous public statements by the Kleins that they would never give in to baking a wedding cake for same-sex customers, the administrative judge for Labor Board found:
The Kleins are unrepentant and will not have to pay a penny of their fine themselves, as they are in the process of the typical christian “help-we’re-being-discriminated-against!” fundraising. They raised more than 50000 dollars in a few hours.
And they were never asked to publish a message (on the cake, or in any public medium) that might indicate they were morally okay with the idea of same-sex marriage. They were just asked to bake a tasty cake and they refused out of the pure delusion that their religious rights should trump the moral and legal rights of the public to equal service in a business open to the public.
As if the mere act of putting a cake in a box is somehow an affront to god if a lesbian couple might end up sharing a few bites of the cake! Gawdawful idiots, the Kleins.
Don’t want to serve the public? Then don’t choose to profit from owning a business which sells to the public in a state with anti-discrimination laws. Don’t want to promise to do better in the future (even if you plan to secretly remain anti-gay bigots) in order to get the Labor Board off your back before the case has to go to court? Then you deserve the “stupid tax” of 135000 for extra-stubborn bigotry.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, forgot link to source of quotes about this case:
George Rede, OregonLive, 5-24-2015
If discriminatory practices in Oregon were such that the couple could not have got a cake anywhere there, then there would be a cause for action to change state law. But, to be honest, my response to such a refusal would be to say, “As you wish. Believe what you like. I will take my business to another baker who wants it. It’s your loss not mine.”
I can only hope that were I in the position of the wedding cake makers I would say “I disagree with your choice of life-style, but I am going to do my best to make you the best damned cake ever. And may God bless you.”
ETA: And please send all your friends!
Sure, that’s a wonderful attitude. It’s also just plain wrong as the history of discrimination in the United States clearly shows. When businesses are allowed to legally discriminate, the “separate but equal” accommodations supposedly available elsewhere always turn out to be less-than-equal.
That’s why the decent folks in our society have collectively agreed to have anti-discrimination legislation passed by our elected representatives. And if the legislation is never actually used to prevent or fine acts of business discrimination, then it’s literally not worth the paper it was printed on.
Why should this lesbian couple be discommoded by having to seek their cake elsewhere in Oregon merely to indulge an antique religion? What’s so special about the Klein’s supposedly religious views that they should get extra respect and extra rights to discriminate, not granted to any other philosophy or personal preference?
Yay, Mung! This is the perfect answer.
Too bad you didn’t happen to be one of the Klein’s friends so you might have talked some sense into them at the time.
Heck hotshoe_, I have enough difficulty trying to talk sense into myself!
The message it sends to me is that the plaintiffs are the lowest form of scum. Westboro Baptist Church low. I think it will tip a few votes in upcoming elections.
Bake them two cakes.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. They just wanted a cake.
How in the world did the wife who was not even present deserve damages? How was she even a party to the lawsuit?
Loss of appetite coupled with weight gain. I’d sue too.
Don’t ask me, ask the Labor Board, the administrative judge(s), and the lawyers for all sides.
But as a guess, I’d say it has something to do with the filth that Aaron Klein sees fit to say in public about the lesbian couple
and the fact that the second women has the burden of consoling her spouse when she comes home in tears from the hate Aaron subjected her to.
Once the couple made the original complaint to the Board about the discrimination they had received, the state agency is who decides what penalties to assess and on whose behalf.
Just wanting a cake is fine. Lawsuits are not fine. It’s incredibly petty.
I don’t see any problems with a large punitive amount being awarded. From what I’ve read the Kleins were the ones being major league assholes here. They had a dozen chances to settle this, the easiest being just to stop the discrimination and bake the cake. Try putting yourself in the gay couple’s shoes – what should have been the happiest day in their lives was turned into a circus by some Christian homophobic bigots. After being spit on and denigrated their whole lives maybe this was just the last straw. Some messages deserve to be sent, and loudly.
We do have the legal reasoning why Bowman-Cryer is a party to the suit and “deserve damages”.
It’s a pdf and I’m not going to transcribe it all.
The Kleins do argue that Bowman-Cryer was “never denied services” since she was not there for the cake-tasting session.
That argument is rejected because “
Further
Interim Order – ruling on respondents’ motion for summary judgement; January 2015 — pdf
The evidentiary hearing which established the specific fines and damages was held sometime later than this Interim Order (and the decision, which was announced in April, is still subject to appeal by the Kleins.)
Sorry but “separate but equal” was found an inadequate response way back in the 60’s. The point is not could they have found another baker, of course they could. The point is no same sex couple should have to find another,.
Can you imaging where we’d be today if the young people who sat and integrated the lunch counters in the deep south just said “sure, we’ll just find another place to eat”.
Woolworth’s Counter, 1963, Jackson Mississippi
What if Rosa Parks had said “sure I’ll move to the back of the bus, or just wait for another to come along”.
I don’t know what you mean by “lawsuit” but this case is not actually a civil suit brought by the lesbian couple against the bakers; it’s two sets of formal charges brought by the Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry against the bakers.
It’s a potential bureaucratic nightmare because it’s not a trial with a jury of one’s peers, but I don’t think that’s any reason to dismiss it as “petty”.
The state of Oregon quite clearly thinks it not petty to persuade (or force, if necessary) businesses to follow Oregon law.
Surely it’s better for the Kleins, from their own perspective, to have this judgement against them rather than to have their acts of discrimination be a criminal matter, to have been arrested and jailed. I don’t think anyone wants that.
But in the absence of any possible penalty, what would persuade other prejudiced business owners to obey the anti-discrimination laws?
Laws do have to have teeth for when persuasion fails.
LoL!
One of the people awarded “damages” wasn’t even present and had no knowledge of the events except as relayed to them by the person who was truly responsible for their mental distress.
Like the husband and her mother could not have simply blown off the bigots and gone to a different store. Like the wedding was that same day. Puhleeze.
Why should they have to go somewhere else Mung?
Should blacks who are refused service at a white run restaurant just “go somewhere else” and pretend the illegal discrimination didn’t happen? What about the next black diners who try to eat there? When do you say “enough is enough” and stand up for equal civil rights?
I think I’m being consistent when I despise anyone who tries to use the law to tell other people what to say or do.
Husband ???
Oh, honey.
Do edit your post to fix that mistake. You’ll look better and feel better — and then I’ll edit this response to a smiley face.
They should not HAVE to go somewhere else, Adapa. But they could have CHOSEN to do so anyways. The store owner did not HAVE to refuse them service. The store owner could have CHOSEN to provide them the service.
Do you otherwise have a point?
How about the times when what other people say or do can be demonstrated harmful to society?
Should we get rid of all laws against robbing banks because banks use the law to tell the bank robber what he can’t do?
Anti-discrimination laws are in place for a reason. In a perfect world we wouldn’t need them (or any laws) but we don’t live in a perfect world.
Why should the couple CHOOSE to give in to bigotry and discrimination? If the bigots are let off the hook then the bigotry gets perpetuated indefinitely.
Blacks in Selma in the 60’s could have chosen to ignore the racism. Lunch counters could have chosen to integrate on their own. That’s not how it came down.
The bakery in question chose to illegally discriminate. The state and the couple chose to press charges and file suit. Both made their choices.
What other pointless whining do you have to offer?
In my earlier post I chose not to put “wife” in quotes because I thought that might attract undue attention. So I didn’t put husband in quotes either.
Mung: How in the world did the wife who was not even present deserve damages?
Silly me, thinking if one of the couple was identified as the wife the other would be identified as the husband. That’s what I get for paying attention to HuffPo. It didn’t even occur to me to question why it wasn’t the bride and her mother out looking at cakes. Man do I have some catching up to do!
Bring up another manufactured crisis and let’s see.
Filing a complaint about services refused is fine. Fabricating non-existent damages is not. As far as I’m concerned, that list makes a mockery out of what otherwise would have been a legitimate complaint.
Some people think standing up to bigotry and discrimination is the right thing to do. Then there are folks like you who think it’s better to bend over and grab your ankles. The first way is better.
How do you set proper damages for having your wedding ruined, your name smeared across Christian anti-gay hate sites, for getting hate mail and death threats all due to standing up to the illegal discrimination?
Mung, the lesbian couple in this case are NOT husband and wife.
Without knowing them personally, I can make a good guess that they are both “wives” — that is, that they each introduce each other as “This is my wife …”
Did you really think one of them is pretending to be a husband?
Hint: that’s not how same sex marriage works.
And if it had been a male-male couple, neither would be the wife. They would normally call each other husbands.
Legally, they’re both “spouses”. To be honest, I can’t be arsed to look up if they eventually did get married or not, but assuming that they are indeed married, then they’re both “spouses”.
So if you had wanted to write your comments safely, you could have stuck with “spouse” in both examples. But at least “wife” for both the women in this particular case would be the correct gender word.
Now, you’re all caught up!
It’s not an either/or.
Not on the list for damages: “what should have been the happiest day in their lives was turned into a circus”
For all you or I know, Adapa, their wedding day was still the happiest day in their lives and was not at all a circus. You have facts that say otherwise?
And really, if they did in fact allow this sordid episode to ruin their wedding and steal their joy, who really is responsible for that?
Now here’s where you can accuse me of being a heartless bigot and pretend like I think that the store owners did nothing wrong. You’re up!
Yes, I admit I was being needlessly provocative. I am and will probably always be a smartass. I apologize for not being more attentive, I could have at least tried to determine the proper protocol. Mea Culpa.
For all you know what was described in the HuffPo article was accurate and they deserved every penny they were awarded.
You have facts that say otherwise?
I didn’t say there weren’t real damages. And I’m sure both sides were getting hate mail. But throwing in every conceivable pathology plus the kitchen sink simply isn’t honest. And every emotional tremor is not worth a monetary payment. It’s too much like the guy who files for disability and then goes mountain climbing. Does a drama queen deserve more damages than one who is emotionally stable?
My understanding is that this is common in such law suits, to list every negative effect that happened.
As many have pointed out this was about much more than individual damages for not getting a cake. It was a clear message to other businesses in the state that illegal discrimination won’t be tolerated. I personally would have liked to see a judgment for at least twice more. This wasn’t like Joe and Josephine Schmo got sold a crappy wedding cake and were suing for damages. This was a large shot in a civil rights battle.
What’s your evidence that the two women were not honest about the emotional and stress-related physical effects on them as the Kleins dragged the case out? Meanwhile the Kleins continued posting on social media and giving interviews justifying their hatred of gays and shaming the two women. (On the other hand, the two women refused essentially all comment in media and had nothing to do with any agitation against the Kleins.)
It wasn’t the two women who asked for monetary damages nor who determined the sum. That’s completely up to the agency — it might be that the judge is prejudiced against christians and is over-reaching — it might be that he’s a rich guy who doesn’t think a fine will teach a lesson unless it’s big enough that it would sting his own fat wallet if it were imposed on him — or not. In any case, it’s stupid to imply the two women are crybabies who asked for the monetary payments as if that’s what they wanted to heal their “emotional tremors”.
What makes you think the words “drama queen” are appropriate for either of these women?
If you don’t think that’s the appropriate term for either, then why did you even mention it?
I would have found for the plaintiff but awarded a nominal sum. Excessive sleep, loss of sleep and sleeplessness? C’mon, you can’t have your cake and eat it (brrrrr-bish!).
Heh, that list pretty much sums me up every time my stupid far-too-frequent ‘one-to-one’ with my supposed manager looms.
This would not have happened if the bakers had been Muslim and the customers had requested a picture of Mohamed.
Mung,
Was this opportunistic? Probably. But just by them filing the complaint, a totally justified and acceptable action, they were vilified by every vile religious hate site (eg, LifeSiteNews) on the net. Frankly, it would be nice if more civil suits were filed against these sites.
The evidence is right there within the list of so-called “maladies”. I’ve seen combat soldiers returning from Afghanistan who didn’t have anywhere near that level of PTSD. But I know a couple of “drama queens”, too, and those kinds of hyped up hysterical sufferings are right there for every thunderclap.
Now it’s very good of you to acknowledge that the judge could be overreaching. At least you are willing to concede that what was done in this case was somewhat less than justice. It was definitely an over-reaction by somebody. “Making an example” of someone is not, as far as I can tell, consistent with the rule of law. That’s more a rule of whim.
But was it the judge? As far as I know, he didn’t draw up the list of “injuries”.
DON’T put words in my mouth.
I concede no such thing. As I can tell, from reading every single page of the court documents, the outcome of this case is exactly what it should be: a necessary decision for the plaintiffs who were illegally discriminated against merely on the basis of their sexual orientation and who were harmed by an ongoing campaign of christian anti-gay bigotry initiated and stoked by the Kleins.
Whether you think they were “drama queens” based on your acquaintance with some other completely different characters is irrelevant to whether the agency’s decision is either morally or legally justified.
The Kleins put up no defense against the facts in the case. They broke the law and continued to say that they were happy to break it.
“Making an example” of someone may not seem legitimate to you, but ask any defendant (or any lawyer) if they would be better off to act repentant and promise to reform, or if they would be better off to act stubborn and promise to re-offend. The Kleins had choices, and they chose to offer themselves up as examples of refusal to cooperate with the law.
The Kleins deserved, and continue to deserve, the full legal consequences they have brought upon themselves in the name of martyring themselves “for christ”.
The outcome of this case, so far, is exactly the justice we should have hoped for. Well, minus the fact that christian sympathy for bigots knows no bounds, and the Kleins will never have to pay a penny of the money, since it is all being donated to their cause by other bigoted christians. But we can’t remedy that by imposing a more severe penalty that would actually teach them a lesson. We have to settle for the fact that this case carries the message that discrimination is not allowed in Oregon state.
What if the cake bakers were lesbian feminists and they refused to make a cake for any heterosexual wedding because they think traditional marriage is demeaning to women?
Would the same logic apply?
peace
Yes.
What if the customers were Nazis or racists.
Nope. This is nothing but a couple of bullies.