"Religious refusal to bake for a gay wedding may cost bakery $135,000"

Breathe · Apr 30, 2015

Shad said:
It about not break the law but refusing service for subjective views not objective facts.

But it's their choice. It's their business, and theirs alone. They reserve the right to police their business however they want. We may not agree with it, we may not like it, but we don't have to run our businesses that way.

xkatz · Apr 30, 2015

Its good to know that "MUH FEELINGS!" are more important than people being able to own/control their own businesses. Government worship at its finest.

Wirey · Apr 30, 2015

It's not feelings. Laws like this are necessary to avoid segregation, like in the South in the 50's.

columbus · Apr 30, 2015

Wirey said:
It's not feelings. Laws like this are necessary to avoid segregation, like in the South in the 50's.

I do not agree. The difference between the world gay people live in now and what black people faced in the fifties is huge.
The politically correct community could put the Kliens out of business if they tried. If you could rein in the crazies who will make death threats and such, which mostly serves to make bigots into martyrs.
Tom

Wirey · Apr 30, 2015

columbus said:
I do not agree. The difference between the world gay people live in now and what black people faced in the fifties is huge.
The politically correct community could put the Kliens out of business if they tried. If you could rein in the crazies who will make death threats and such, which mostly serves to make bigots into martyrs.
Tom

You're discussing one specific group. If a restaurant in Atlanta decided not to serve blacks because Hamm looked at Noah while he was nude, should that be protected? How about all the people who will hide behind religion so they can wallow in their own prejudices. Forcing a business (not a person, a business), which requires the permission of society to exist, to adhere to the laws of that society is not a stretch. My moral code considers paying a young girl for sex wrong, so I don't do it. If I owned a business, should I be allowed to exclude women because I believe they had sex for material gain? How about if I consider sleeping with your boyfriend because he pays more than half the rent sex for material gain? Where should society draw the line?

It's draw in the idea that every member of society is entitled to be treated like every member of society. Straying away from that because someone professes to believe in a specific invisible God being displeased is an abrogation of equality at it's most fundamental level. Plus, gay people are rich! Why would you chase them away?

GoodbyeDave · Apr 30, 2015

Obviously the people who own this shop are fundamentalist Protestants, which means that they will oppose a whole lot of things, not just homosexuality. But how do they know what their customers get up to? They'd think I'm a damned idolater if they knew my religion, but they'd serve me because they wouldn't know. For all they know they may be serving the local Satanist. If you run a business, you have to take your customers as they come.

On a more philosophic level, humans are social animals and a good human is one who acts in a social manner. The only fellow-members of society we have a right to object to are law-breakers. In private, we can draw our friends from those who are like-minded, but in public we own a duty of civility to our fellow citizens.

columbus · Apr 30, 2015

Shad said:
The bakerer also tried to breake law by setting up a donation drive to pay for their fees. It is amazing how people think they can break the law due to their religion.

On what grounds is there a law against a fundraising account on GoFundMe?
Isn't GoFundMe discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs?
Tom

Skwim · Apr 30, 2015

columbus said:
On what grounds is there a law against a fundraising account on GoFundMe?
Isn't GoFundMe discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs?
Tom

Don't believe there is; however, FWIW . . .

"GoFundMe says its policy doesn’t allow accounts that raise money 'in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.' ”
source

atpollard · Apr 30, 2015

Wirey said:
It's not feelings. Laws like this are necessary to avoid segregation, like in the South in the 50's.

You think that if Oregon doesn't force bakeries to bake for gays , that it will be a slippery slope into 'gay' vs 'straight' restrooms and water fountains and seats on the bus?

Frankly it is stories like this that lend some credibility to the fears that a Church will be sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony ... which is what drives most of the opposition among religious groups that oppose Gay Marriage.
In Oregon, the law has a religious exception ... but as we all know that is just one court decision away from being revoked ... will the exception stand if the Supreme Court rules Gay Marriage a Right?
I am not against equal rights, I am against special protections for one group - any group.
A shop owner should have the right to refuse service (and suffer the economic consequences, not the judicial consequences, of his actions.)

Wirey · Apr 30, 2015

atpollard said:
You think that if Oregon doesn't force bakeries to bake for gays , that it will be a slippery slope into 'gay' vs 'straight' restrooms and water fountains and seats on the bus?

Frankly it is stories like this that lend some credibility to the fears that a Church will be sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony ... which is what drives most of the opposition among religious groups that oppose Gay Marriage.
In Oregon, the law has a religious exception ... but as we all know that is just one court decision away from being revoked ... will the exception stand if the Supreme Court rules Gay Marriage a Right?
I am not against equal rights, I am against special protections for one group - any group.
A shop owner should have the right to refuse service (and suffer the economic consequences, not the judicial consequences, of his actions.)

So, you'd be okay if banks kept Christians out because they're supposed to live like Jesus and shouldn't own anything? Because it's the exact same thing.

atpollard · Apr 30, 2015

Wirey said:
So, you'd be okay if banks kept Christians out because they're supposed to live like Jesus and shouldn't own anything? Because it's the exact same thing.

Okay? No. I would take my banking business to a Credit Union ... but I think that they should have the right to do business with whomever they choose.
As a more practical example, If the Church of Scientology created a bank just for their members, I would not suffer hundreds of thousands of dollars of mental pain and suffering if they refused to serve me because I was not a Scientologist.
Oregon is punishing the bakery owners for their (foolish) religious beliefs ... That seems wrong to me.
Next time they want to place their faith over good business practice, they will need to use one of the Lawyer Approved 'legal' excuses rather than being honest ... great, we trade foolish for sneaky ... that's so much better.

Skwim · Apr 30, 2015

atpollard said:
Okay? No. I would take my banking business to a Credit Union ... but I think that they should have the right to do business with whomever they choose.
As a more practical example, If the Church of Scientology created a bank just for their members, I would not suffer hundreds of thousands of dollars of mental pain and suffering if they refused to serve me because I was not a Scientologist.
Oregon is punishing the bakery owners for their (foolish) religious beliefs ... That seems wrong to me.
Next time they want to place their faith over good business practice, they will need to use one of the Lawyer Approved 'legal' excuses rather than being honest ... great, we trade foolish for sneaky ... that's so much better.

Oregon is punishing the bakery owners for breaking the law: discrimination based on sexual orientation. From the linked article in the OP.

"Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation."

Want to be in business in Oregon, then you'd better comply with its laws and codes or suffer the consequences. The bakery owners chose not to comply with the law.

atpollard · Apr 30, 2015

Skwim said:
Oregon is punishing the bakery owners for breaking the law: discrimination based on sexual orientation. From the linked article in the OP.

"Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation."
Want to be in business in Oregon, then you'd better comply with its laws and codes or suffer the consequences. The bakery owners chose not to comply with the law.

The problem that I see is that, as a business owner, I can refuse you service in my corner store because I think that you look shady and may be planning on causing trouble or because you make the other customers nervous (due to your shaved head and facial swastika tattoos) ... unless you are also Gay, then I need to prove my innocence. I acknowledge that they broke the law and the court decision is correct ... it is the law that I am opposed to (and the apparent excessive damages awarded that look more punitive than compensatory).

Wirey · Apr 30, 2015

atpollard said:
Okay? No. I would take my banking business to a Credit Union ... but I think that they should have the right to do business with whomever they choose.
As a more practical example, If the Church of Scientology created a bank just for their members, I would not suffer hundreds of thousands of dollars of mental pain and suffering if they refused to serve me because I was not a Scientologist.
Oregon is punishing the bakery owners for their (foolish) religious beliefs ... That seems wrong to me.
Next time they want to place their faith over good business practice, they will need to use one of the Lawyer Approved 'legal' excuses rather than being honest ... great, we trade foolish for sneaky ... that's so much better.

And when they charged you an extra $50 a month because you had no other options, what would you do then?

Allowing business owners to discriminate hurts everyone. I for one would hope that these people pay the full fine as a deterrent. If you want to do business in a civilized society, you get to act civilized.

Skwim · Apr 30, 2015

atpollard said:
The problem that I see is that, as a business owner, I can refuse you service in my corner store because I think that you look shady and may be planning on causing trouble or because you make the other customers nervous (due to your shaved head and facial swastika tattoos) ... unless you are also Gay, then I need to prove my innocence. I acknowledge that they broke the law and the court decision is correct ... it is the law that I am opposed to (and the apparent excessive damages awarded that look more punitive than compensatory).

Not at all. The law only applies if the reason you deny service is because of sexual orientation. If there is some other legitimate reason then sexual orientation doesn't enter the picture. Sexual orientation doesn't automatically trump other legitimate reasons.

atpollard · Apr 30, 2015

Skwim said:
Not at all. The law only applies if the reason you deny service is because of sexual orientation. If there is some other legitimate reason then sexual orientation doesn't enter the picture. Sexual orientation doesn't automatically trump other legitimate reasons.

If the person is a white heterosexual, I will not be forced to prove that I did not serve them because of Race or Orientation, if they are a Black Homosexual then they can accuse me of refusing service BECAUSE they were Black or Homosexual and the burden of proof switches to me.
That was not the case here because the bakery owner was too honest or too stupid to make up an excuse, so there is no burden of proof required ... the store owner admitted guilt.
But the shift in burden of proof is why I oppose such laws in general ... why are some forms of discrimination permitted (those not mentioned in the law) and other forms prohibited?

Judicial activism only exacerbates that since it makes the'exceptions' valid only until a court decides otherwise ... uncertainty in the Judicial process is generally a bad thing.

Wirey · Apr 30, 2015

This isn't 'judicial activism'. It's upholding the law! When a judge sentenced Ted Bundy to death, was it a feminist ploy?

Shad · Apr 30, 2015

Breathe said:
But it's their choice. It's their business, and theirs alone. They reserve the right to police their business however they want. We may not agree with it, we may not like it, but we don't have to run our businesses that way.

They broke a law that applies to business that are open to the public, simply as that. Churches do not fall under public business laws so there is no issue. You are fear mongering over a strawman issue.

Skwim · Apr 30, 2015

atpollard said:
If the person is a white heterosexual, I will not be forced to prove that I did not serve them because of Race or Orientation, if they are a Black Homosexual then they can accuse me of refusing service BECAUSE they were Black or Homosexual and the burden of proof switches to me.
That was not the case here because the bakery owner was too honest or too stupid to make up an excuse, so there is no burden of proof required ... the store owner admitted guilt.
But the shift in burden of proof is why I oppose such laws in general . . .
. . . Judicial activism only exacerbates that since it makes the'exceptions' valid only until a court decides otherwise ... uncertainty in the Judicial process is generally a bad thing.

Anyone can accuse anyone else of doing anything. However, the burden of proof is theirs, not yours to prove it wasn't. The burden does not shift to the defendant at all. This is basic law 101.

why are some forms of discrimination permitted (those not mentioned in the law) and other forms prohibited?

Because our court's, in interpreting of the Constitution (either the US Constitution or a state's constitution, or both), have decided that some forms of discrimination don't merit protection. They violate some part of the Constitution.

Shad · Apr 30, 2015

columbus said:
On what grounds is there a law against a fundraising account on GoFundMe?
Isn't GoFundMe discriminating on the basis of religious beliefs?
Tom

Thought there was, guess I was wrong.

No GoFundMe is against providing a service in which it is not obligated to support people that have broken the law. Many businesses have a policy regarding criminal record which does not violate laws depending on the area in question. In some states doing so is illegal. If it is illegal in Oregon then the bakery owner can fill a lawsuit. Likewise there are some laws against hiring criminal offender such sex offender in a sector which they are at risk of re-offending or harming others.

"Religious refusal to bake for a gay wedding may cost bakery $135,000"

Hostis humani generis

Well-Known Member

Fartist

yawn <ignore> yawn

Fartist

Well-Known Member

yawn <ignore> yawn

Veteran Member

Active Member

Fartist

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Fartist

Veteran Member

Active Member

Fartist

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member