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.
But they weren’t. They were two law abiding citizens who were illegally discriminated against by some Christian bigots who have refused to take responsibility for their bigoted actions.
Agreed the Christian bakers and their homophobic support group are bullies. That’s why they need to be taught a financially painful lesson.
Sorry, petrushka, I usually respect your point of view, but this is just plain wrong.
The Kleins broke the law which states:
659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]
You will note that this law does not mention the ideology of Nazism among the protected classes against which discrimination would be illegal.
You will note that it prohibits discrimination against a person on account of their race, but not on account of their expressed racism.
If the customers were Nazis or racists, the bakers would have been perfectly within their own rights to refuse service on those grounds. And if the prospective Nazi/racist customer were to complain to the state BoLI, they wouldn’t get a judgement in their favor, because unlike the lesbian couple, they weren’t being discriminated against illegally.
The Kleins broke the law. A lesbian couple was harmed by their illegal conduct and chose to make a complaint about it to the relevant state agency rather than suffer in silence. The agency investigated the complaint fairly, and after attempted mediation which failed because of the Kleins’ intransigence, they found that the facts in the case (never denied by the Kleins) justified imposing penalties against the lawbreakers.
Which is exactly how the law is supposed to work. It’s why we have a government to begin with, by mutual agreement, to protect us from lawbreakers and to enforce consequences which will either deter future lawbreaking, or provide restitution to the victims, or both.
You should read the legal papers instead of continuing to complain that this is all about a couple of venal lesbians “bullying” the poor defenseless bakers.
.
.
.
.
P.S.
‘Since apparently nobody here besides me has read the case, here’s the Proposed conclusions of law; April 21 2015; pdf;
Ouch, very long! I understand that it’s “Proposed” because there was an option for the Kleins to file an appeal before this becomes the “Final” order. I can’t find any court document more recent than this nor do I have any info as to whether the Kleins have filed an appeal or not. But this amply serves to account for the sequence of events in this case which result in the monetary judgement against the Kleins.
Ninja’d by Adapa 🙂
I’m mostly just taking your word on things. Awkward!
😉
petrushka,
Or blacks, God forbid: Greensboro sit-ins
Like those Greensboro guys. Woolworth’s was just trying to run a business, and these black bullies came in demanding to be treated equally to the whites.
Wanting to be served is fine. Sit-ins are not fine. It’s incredibly petty.
Like the Greensboro guys. There were a lot of other ways they could have gone about it. Disrupting business at Woolworth’s was scummy.
Yes, just like in 1960. There were people who were sympathetic to black complaints, but then them blacks had to step over the line and organize a sit-in. Why couldn’t they just lobby their elected representatives instead of getting all uppity? No doubt that tipped some votes against them.
You are waaaay off base on this one, petrushka.
I think the penalty was excessive and that some portions of the complaint were ridiculous, but was the complaint warranted? Undoubtedly. The law was clearly violated. Was punishment warranted? Absolutely, and it needed to be painful enough to deter future discrimination. I just don’t think it needed to be as harsh as it was.
You can always feel free to take my word on everything, since I’m always right 🙂
Err, no, that’s not what I meant to say. I meant “Trust, but verify!”
So if I go into a delicatessen, I can demand not only to be served, but to be served a ham sandwich. Or a beefburger at a vegan restaurant.
Completely wrong analogy. It would be like you went to a deli that was serving ham sandwiches to everyone else but when you asked for one were told “get lost, we don’t serve your kind here”.
I highly recommend you read the case overview that hotshoe provided above. Not only was this a clear cut case of illegal discrimination, it seems the Kleins went out of their way to be dicks towards the couple that complained about them. That includes publishing the couples’ names and addresses on facebook along with anti-gay statements, publicizing the incident by contacting Christian run media sites whining about how they were the victims, etc. The Kleins also countersued for $100,000 but that was tossed out of court.
Again, I only wish the verdict had been doubled what was awarded. The bigots deserved it.
Let me get this straight. The law allows discrimination on the basis of political party?
The lunch counter example is bogus because Jim Crow discrimination was the enforced by law. It was not the choice of proprietors.
Good Lord are you confused. This was a clear cut case of illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with political parties.
I wasn’t talking to you. I was responding to the claim that discrimination on the basis of political affiliation is legal. How about the right to be served ham by a Jewish restaurant? Or the right to have a satirical cartoon of Mohamed printed by a Muslim printer?
Yes, discrimination is allowed on the basis of political party. Why wouldn’t it? Why should party affiliation be a protected class? What evidence is there that party affiliation has been subject to long-standing harassment and discrimination, like visible race and gender has been, and therefore equally with race and gender needs the protection of anti-discrimination law?
What larger interest of society would be served by forcing you (the business owner) to serve cake or sell newspapers to the obnoxious Green Party member who has been pissing you off by plastering their lawn with anti-capitalism campaign signs? Of course, you might notice that it’s merely good business to sell to as many customers as possible — most business owners don’t care about their customers’ politics enough to risk losing a sale — but it’s definitely part of your right to free speech and free association not to have to “associate” with them if you hate their politics enough to turn away their money.
There’s a rather large difference between our protection against discrimination based on what a person is/has (has a certain color of skin, is male, has an inborn sexual orientation) compared to what a person does (chooses a Nazi tattoo, wears a Rand Paul campaign button, takes their shirt off in public).
Obviously we don’t all agree on exactly where the lines should be drawn. But it’s clear that society has a compelling interest to interfere with business’ “right” to discriminate in at least some egregious cases as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s amply demonstrated.
I know you’re not okay with regressing to an era where a black kid could go hungry because there was no business open in town which would serve him. Me neither.
I am absolutely confident that a case of hypothetical discrimination against a political party member is not at the same level as the violent and pervasive real discrimination against blacks and gays. So I don’t see any need to cry over the possibility that some poor Randian kid is going hungry today because all the businesses discriminate against him and there’s no law specifically to protect him from that.
There is no evidence that service was refused because these folks choose to have sex with each other or because of who they were sexually attracted too in general for that matter.
Service was refused because the proprietors refused to be a part of a celebration of a particular sexual choice. The couple could not abide the thought that someone would not want to participate in their big day.
It’s simply the lack of approval that caused the injury.
It must be sad to be so fragile as to let the moral opinions of a couple of random bakers affect you in this way. And equally sad to think that a legal settlement will some how make folks change their minds on the morality of your sexual choices.
peace
petrushka, how are either of those examples relevant?
Please take more time to explain your points, or please don’t spit up such apparently-clueless questions.
I’m really bothered by your bizarre interjections here. You’re making me worry about you.
Oh, bless your little heart.
What about them? They have absolutely no relevance to this case. The couple in this case was merely asking for a service that was identical to the service provided hetero others. That’s not the case in your dumb analogies.
“Oh, bless your little heart.”
Translate: “People I disagree with are ‘little’.”
This is totally kosher with the ‘spirit’ of Lizzie’s atheist based rules.
Translate: people who say silly christian things are funny and cute like innocent little kittens.
Here, Have some penguins.
You’ll feel better.
“Alienation towards religion.”
All religion?
petrushka,
You’ve really gone off the rails in this thread.
The Woolworth segregated lunch counter was not law. It was company policy.
Yes.
They were not asked to be part of the celebration. They were only asked to bake a cake.
1. I’ve had nothing but a phone for the last four days and got cases mixed up.
2. I need a real computer to compose something coherent.
3. Although I have screwed up, I am troubled by the thought that political discrimination is okay. I need time to read the whole thread.
Sorry, petrushka, hang in there!
petrushka,
It’s legal, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.
Neil Rickert
Where I come from the wedding cake is a central part of the celebration.
The thing that made this cake special was it was called a Wedding cake.
No one is being sued for refusing to sell apple pie or barbeque to gay couples.
.
It’s all about refusing to celebrate to a particular sexual choice that happens to be popular right now. The Plaintiffs were injured simply by the bakers lack of acceptance.
peace
By the way, the list was supposed to be a list of physical harm done.
I don’t accept the argument that someone can refuse to sell you something on the grounds that they don’t like how you’re going to use it. They are offering a product for sale to the public, and they don’t get to choose arbitrarily which part of the public they won’t sell to. There are relevant reasons to refuse to sell, but ultimate disposition of the product ain’t one of them.
I suspect the fine is so large because it was clear that such marriages were going to be frequent ongoing events, and the state didn’t want its citizens guessing where they could buy what any member of the public is supposed to be able to buy. So they set an example here: we really mean this law, so you’d better obey it.
The Kleins have already closed up shop, but I think gofundme.com will probably raise enough money for them to pay up.
I note that the Labor Commissioner has imposed a gag order, prohibiting the Kleins from advertising that they plan to continue the same discrimination in the future. It’s illegal in the state to announce an intention to break the law. This order arose from an interview the Kleins did with some right wing guy, in which they mentioned that they certainly would never follow this law, lest Jesus strike them down or something like that. It’s not like they learned a damn thing.
Bullshit Mung. All of the things listed in the complaint were described as physical manifestations of stress.
Don’t be an idiot. A business would be breaking the law if they refused to sell apple pie or BBQ to gay customers solely because they were gay — and if the prospective customers complain to the state BoLI, then the store owners will be investigated. Perhaps an apology and a promise to do better would be sufficient to settle a pie/BBQ discrimination case (which would have been true in the cake case, if the Kleins hadn’t been more interested in becoming christian so-called martyrs).
The only reason “no one is being sued” for refusing to sell pie or BBQ to gay people is because that hasn’t happened yet, or at least it hasn’t happened to a person who cared enough to report it. In fact, the lesbian couple likely would not have cared enough to report the cake incident except that Aaron Klein is a stupid asshole who called them abominations. Yeah, that’s a surefire way to get people to care.
It’s so simple. Don’t discriminate. If you think that your religion might require you to discriminate on behalf of christ’s “law”, then don’t choose a lifestyle where you need to run a profit business open to the public. If you choose to run a profit business, then act like a goddamned adult and don’t whine when you have to obey actual laws and regulations which pertain equally to every business.
Christians are such whiny babies so much of the time, it’s sickening.
So you agree with me. I notice rth mentioned that in the OP a well. Physical harm.
Like this one: Hurt
It’s well documented in the medical literature that emotional stress can cause physical harm. Are you whining because it wasn’t a broken leg or a severed arm? You sound like one more sore loser Christian bigot.
Actually Adapa, I’m worried about cake, and especially about not getting a generous slice.
Physical harm: Disbelief
I should have read the OP more carefully the first time through.
Mung,
Like with a good cake, I think there is plenty of blame to go around on this one. And liberals have missed an opportunity – because this seems (to me at least) excessive you’ve empowered the opposition.
Keep bawling Mung. The homophobic bigots lost and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Hotshoe’s post amounts to ‘ITS THE LAW, DAMMIT!! FOLLOW THE LAW!!!”
But, but, my dear hotshoe, thats what the government of the Communist State of the People’s Republic of China says all the time. Hey, its the LAW!!
Besides, you are not fond of Laws written in stone (tablets) if Im not mistaken.
So lets look at this from the viewpoint of” Is it rational to require merchants to sell to any and all citizens that patronize their establishment?
Freedom means freedom TO as well as freedom FROM. Which is more valuable in a democracy, the TO or the FROM?
If we protect alternative lifestyles, then we have to protect the obese, even though selling cakes to the obese could also be easily construed by a liberal minded interpretation that the cake merchants are contributing to the nutritional delinquency of the obese patron.
Therefore, the cake merchants are doing society a service by refusing to sell cakes to an obese person.
So, you see my dear hotshoe, it seems a slippery slope of liberal politics to try and satisfy all the emotional demands of the populace.
Rather, freedom to sell to whomever, counteracted by the freedom to buy from whomever, creates the balance required between competing interests.
The affronted couple had and still HAVE the the right AND freedom to buy from cake merchants that would happily sell a nice cake to them.
I don’t want to live in a country that tells me WHOM I have to sell cakes to, and WHOM I should by cakes from.
Meaning, government please LEAVE US THE F%$#K ALONE!!!! We can handle ourselves just fine.
As in, we sell cakes to God fearing folks here. But there’s this nice shop just around the corner that does not do God. They will be happy to serve you, Madames. 🙂
oK, gotcha, We ladies thought your shops smelled of something Godawfu anywaysl. We are not all that interested in spending our cash here, on second thought. Could you be good enough to point us in the general direction of your more accomodating competition?
Why, it would be our pleasure. We do aim to serve. Thanks for stopping by.
Now that’s democracy in action.
C’mon, Adapa. Don’t be like that.
Mung isn’t one of the bigots in this thread — use your call-outs for those who say that gay people are the same as three-legged dogs or imply that being gay is just a “popular choice” so it doesn’t matter if people discriminate.
I’m totally on the side of the lesbian couple in this case, but I can see that a person could have legitimate concerns about the case without that being evidence they’re homophobic or particularly sympathetic to the actual bigots (the Kleins).
You don’t have to be mean to Mung about it.
Why??
Sticks and stones and all that.
Why in the world would a lesbian couple be offended by someone telling them God was not pleased with their life choices?
I would not care if you told me that my actions were an abomination to the Easter Bunny. It might make me laugh though.
I have been told that my beliefs are an abomination to Allah more than once. I always get a kick out of it.
Once a Jehovah’s witness told me I was possessed by a demon. hilarious I recently was called a member of the synagogue of Satan by a poster at UD I still get a chuckle at that one.
Surely the lesbian couple is well aware of what the Christian scriptures have to say about their life style and have made the choice already to ignore it. Why would a random baker reminding them of it bother them now?
I would think that in today society being called a bigot or a homophobe would be much worse that being called an abomination to a god you don’t believe in. Those insults have some teeth nowadays.
any way,
Thank you for demonstrating conclusively once again that this issue was never about equality. It is about silencing those will not celebrate a particular sexual relationship.
Peace
Good. Take your bigoted ass to the airport and catch the next plane for Libya.
In the mean while the people who want to live in this country and run a public for-profit business have already agreed to follow the laws of the state and treat all customers equally and fairly. If you can’t make yourself follow the same anti-discrimination laws as every other business then find another line of work.
Mung has a long and sordid history of anti-gay bigoted behavior at UD. He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt any more.
God didn’t tell them He wasn’t pleased. A couple of bigoted homophobic bakers did. It’s not their call. Even that wasn’t the reason for the damages awarded by the state. It was because the bakers acted on their bigotry in direct violation of anti-discrimination law.
No, you’ve got that wrong.
The “opposition” are digging themselves into a deep hole. We have given them some more shovels so that they can keep digging.
what??
quote:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Rom 1:24-27)
end quote
I would have thought this sort of thing was common knowledge. It’s pretty much all over scripture that God has a particular plan for sexual union and is displeased when that plan is not followed.
You might want to take that up with Hotshoe he seems to think this was triggered by the plaintiffs inability to handle the stress of being called an abomination by the big bad cake bakers.
Peace
Liberals didn’t violate anti-discrimination laws. The Kleins and their bakery did.
Liberals didn’t decide to prosecute the Kleins. The State of Oregon did.
Liberals didn’t award the damages in this case. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industry for the State of Oregon did.
Funny thing is you seem to be the first person here at TSZ to have noticed that “alleged fact.” Not only that, but I have been posting here at TSZ for quite some time and you would think that if I was such an anti-gay bigot it would show up here at TSZ as well, though I suppose I could be a two-faced lying anti-gay bigot.
Maybe you should add that.
Frankly anti-gay just isn’t on my agenda, so I find your allegation truly difficult to believe. I am sure though that in the interest of truth and honesty and the law you’ll soon be filing formal charges and submitting the evidence.
Or not.
That question was dealt with in the civil rights era. Let’s not reopen that racist can of worms.
You heard me. God didn’t say a thing to this couple. The bakery owners decided to be judge, jury, and executioner on their own. That was in direct violation of state laws so they were fined and have to pay damages.
Your Bible says “judge not lest ye be judged”. So the bakers were wrong both under secular law and Biblical direction.
And your entire comment which follows is going to be one giant whiny BUT I DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND I DESERVE TO GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE I’M RELIGIOUS.
Well, fuck that noise.
Let’s not, since that’s not what is at issue in the case. As any idiot could tell if they would just read what’s already been posted.
No we don’t. See, easy, problem solved.
Maybe. It’s certainly within their legal and moral right to refuse to sell or to choose to sell cakes to obese patrons. That’s a decision between consenting adults.
Don’t call me “dear”, Steve. I’m not dear to you and you are anything but dear to me.
Yep. I’m sure most people agree that having the freedom to buy cake is a good thing.
Then make sure you don’t live in Oregon, Steve, or you’ll be shit out of luck.
Maybe YOU can handle yourself just fine — although I note there is no evidence to support such a claim — but the Civil Rights movement conclusively showed that the US population in general cannot handle themselves at all when it comes to restraining their harmful ingrained bigotries. Collectively, as a democratic nation, through our elected representatives, we decided to enact anti-discrimination legislation to encourage the hate-filled amongst ourselves to stop harming our fellow citizens.
Funny you should say that. IF the asshole Klein had your script before he chose to express his assholery, he might have gotten away with breaking the law. The lesbian couple decided to report the bakery because Aaron was shitty.
He was still breaking the law and if he had done it politely, that would still be no excuse.
But the state isn’t sending secret inspectors to ensnare bakeries who discriminate; the state would never have known about the discrimination if Aaron Klein had not provided the motivation to report it by acting abominably. It’s not the government’s fault for not “leaving [him] the fuck alone”. It’s solely the bible-bangers’ fault.
No not exactly. It might be “business sense” in action. Too bad so many christians are so goddamn lacking in sense. And common decency. And the willingness to go along (even if they don’t agree) with democratically-enacted laws. Too bad.
Agreed.
Oh please. If there is any innocent party here it is surely the bakery.
Adapa,
Uh-huh. And the list of 88 physical ailments from not getting a cake? Legitimate? You can’t cherry pick the parts you like..