Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2015, 11:43 AM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
What if we looked at this another way? We all know they violated Oregon law because they refused service based on sexual orientation of the customer, or at least that's what we were told. But did they really? Was it the sexual orientation of the buyer that was the deciding factor? Or was it the gay wedding itself they were against. What if a straight guy walks into this bakery and wants to order a cake for a friend's gay wedding, and they refused? The customer is straight, where is the violation? They are actually refusing to provide service to the wedding itself. A wedding isnt a protected class by itself. I've seen stories of bakeries and flower shops that have sold their products to gay people over the years, for valentines day, birthdays etc. But they didn't sell to the same people for the wedding because they were against the gay wedding. I hope I explained that in a way everyone understands it.

And as mom just explained, sometimes the baker is required to actually show up to the event, set up the cake or flowers etc, which is forcing them to be a participant. I definitely disagree with that.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 11:43 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  What if we looked at this another way? We all know they violated Oregon law because they refused service based on sexual orientation of the customer, or at least that's what we were told. But did they really? Was it the sexual orientation of the buyer that was the deciding factor? Or was it the gay wedding itself they were against. What if a straight guy walks into this bakery and wants to order a cake for a friend's gay wedding, and they refused? The customer is straight, where is the violation? They are actually refusing to provide service to the wedding itself. A wedding isnt a protected class by itself. I've seen stories of bakeries and flower shops that have sold their products to gay people over the years, for valentines day, birthdays etc. But they didn't sell to the same people for the wedding because they were against the gay wedding. I hope I explained that in a way everyone understands it.

And as mom just explained, sometimes the baker is required to actually show up to the event, set up the cake or flowers etc, which is forcing them to be a participant. I definitely disagree with that.

You're right of course. Gay Weddings are not a protected class. But it doesn't matter. Bakers which are against gay weddings must be rehabilitated.....according to the state of Oregon.

"“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate. The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.” - Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian

How would the atheists here feel if the state decided to rehabilitate them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 12:20 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2015 12:27 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 12:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-10-2015 11:43 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  What if we looked at this another way? We all know they violated Oregon law because they refused service based on sexual orientation of the customer, or at least that's what we were told. But did they really? Was it the sexual orientation of the buyer that was the deciding factor? Or was it the gay wedding itself they were against. What if a straight guy walks into this bakery and wants to order a cake for a friend's gay wedding, and they refused? The customer is straight, where is the violation? They are actually refusing to provide service to the wedding itself. A wedding isnt a protected class by itself. I've seen stories of bakeries and flower shops that have sold their products to gay people over the years, for valentines day, birthdays etc. But they didn't sell to the same people for the wedding because they were against the gay wedding. I hope I explained that in a way everyone understands it.

And as mom just explained, sometimes the baker is required to actually show up to the event, set up the cake or flowers etc, which is forcing them to be a participant. I definitely disagree with that.

You're right of course. Gay Weddings are not a protected class. But it doesn't matter. Bakers which are against gay weddings must be rehabilitated.....according to the state of Oregon.

"“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate. The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.” - Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian

How would the atheists here feel if the state decided to rehabilitate them?

Which brings me to my ultimate point. Which is a worse crime, refusing to make cake for a gay wedding, when many other options are available to the customer, or forcing someone to go against their deeply held religious beliefs? I've been an atheist my entire life, I think some of the things religious people believe are down right nutty, but even I can see the answer here. Both are a form of discrimination, but the government is only protecting one side, when the Constitution protects both, I believe. In this case, the Oregon government has said, "we don't care what your religious beliefs are, it means nothing, you will do what we say." So much for free exercise.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 12:20 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  In this case, the Oregon government has said, "we don't care what your religious beliefs are, it means nothing, you will do what we say." So much for free exercise.

And for what good purpose? The Gay couple could have gone right down the street and got a cake for their wedding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 12:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-10-2015 12:20 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  In this case, the Oregon government has said, "we don't care what your religious beliefs are, it means nothing, you will do what we say." So much for free exercise.

And for what good purpose? The Gay couple could have gone right down the street and got a cake for their wedding.


And for what good purpose? The baker couple could have gone right down the street and prayed for forgiveness.


Drinking Beverage


Sexual orientation is a protected class under the law. Bigotry, whether or not endorsed by religion, simply is not. End of story dipshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 12:44 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-10-2015 12:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And for what good purpose? The Gay couple could have gone right down the street and got a cake for their wedding.


And for what good purpose? The baker couple could have gone right down the street and prayed for forgiveness.


Drinking Beverage


Sexual orientation is a protected class under the law. Bigotry, whether or not endorsed by religion, simply is not. End of story dipshit.

I would disagree with your last sentence for two reasons.

1. The Constitution protects religious exercise and expression, which is far more powerful than a state law.

2. The very definition of bigotry is intolerance of someone's belief or ideas. It really has nothing to do with race, gender etc. You being against someone for their beliefs about gay marriage makes you a bigot as well. We're all bigots, so to speak. So that really is irrelevant to the discussion.

And your first sentence is just plain false. If God was real, he'd know your true intentions. So if you commit murder with the intent to ask for forgiveness later, kind of cancels out the point of asking for forgiveness.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 02:04 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
Christ guys, they *had* a trial Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
06-10-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
And playing semantic games with whether or not the baker refused to serve at a gay wedding as opposed to refused to gay customers - what's the fucking point? Rolleyes They explicitly discriminated against a gay couple, got into shit for it, the end.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 02:14 PM)morondog Wrote:  And playing semantic games with whether or not the baker refused to serve at a gay wedding as opposed to refused to gay customers - what's the fucking point? Rolleyes They explicitly discriminated against a gay couple, got into shit for it, the end.

It's discrimination against their god-given right to discriminate, morondog.

Clearly a demonic and tyrannical example of government overreach if ever there was one!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
06-10-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 11:43 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  What if we looked at this another way? We all know they violated Oregon law because they refused service based on sexual orientation of the customer, or at least that's what we were told. But did they really? Was it the sexual orientation of the buyer that was the deciding factor? Or was it the gay wedding itself they were against. What if a straight guy walks into this bakery and wants to order a cake for a friend's gay wedding, and they refused? The customer is straight, where is the violation? They are actually refusing to provide service to the wedding itself. A wedding isnt a protected class by itself. I've seen stories of bakeries and flower shops that have sold their products to gay people over the years, for valentines day, birthdays etc. But they didn't sell to the same people for the wedding because they were against the gay wedding. I hope I explained that in a way everyone understands it.

And as mom just explained, sometimes the baker is required to actually show up to the event, set up the cake or flowers etc, which is forcing them to be a participant. I definitely disagree with that.

The inherent difficultly with anti-discrimination law is that it all hinges on the phrase "because of [protected class]." It's simple to write down, but difficult to execute in practice for that same reason.

An employer could argue that he refused to hire a worker because he's "black and sketchy." Well, could someone who is white also be sketchy? Certainly. So should we give the employer the benefit of the doubt because the same rationale could apply to someone who is not-black but sketchy? There is no straightforward answer. The fact the employer said the word "black" works against him; he would not need to prove the sketchiness was main culprit. This sounds silly, but when you start to read more nuanced anti-discrimination laws, this becomes an issue.

The usual "litmus" test for this is how much would the situation change if the plaintiffs were the "privileged class" instead of the "protected class;" but no other changes were made. In this case, the costumer, the couple to be wed, and the plaintiffs are one in the same. If they were a straight couple, then there would be no issue; ergo, it's "because they're gay." In the example you provided, the costumer is not the couple to be wed; the question could very will hinge on who's the plaintiff.

To bring up another imaginary scenario, again using race (since we somehow understand racial anti-discrimination law much better than any other anti-discrimination law), image you're white and you go to a restaurant with a black friend. The waiter refuses to seat you, the white guy, because you associated with a black friend (he, supposedly, also refused to seat the black friend). Did he discriminate against you "because of race?" Well, it wasn't your race, but it was someone else's race. What we'd probably realize is that if someone's race changes (here, the black guy), the incident wouldn't have taken place. By this litmus test, yet, it's "because of race."

Which therefore brings us back to your friend's scenario. True, he was refused service because his friends to be wed were gay (let us not forget that a wedding inevitably involves a couple to be wed; there's no double cargo ship weddings here). Because the couple is gay, and the straight friend was denied service, there was no cake. Again, however, if the couple were straight (which inevitably require the couple to be straight), then the incident wouldn't take place. Ergo, it's "because of sexual orientation." It doesn't matter that the plaintiff's (straight friend) isn't gay; he was denied service because of someone else's sexual orientation.

This is confusing for two reasons: First, because weddings involve a couple and doesn't involve an individual's unique identity; unlike race. Second is that standing is an issue; the plainttiff must be able to demonstrate an impact he experienced because of this incident (that is, not receiving cake). The latter reason is, for example, why if a waiter refused to seat a black person an bystander may not be able to sue the restaurant. However, if that bystander complained that he felt a hostile atmosphere due to the situation, he may be able to complain. This is where nuance matters.

The fact that it's for a wedding (but not birthdays, etc.) makes about as much sense a restaurant saying they will serve dinner to people of any race but only give desert to whites. Just because a majority of services are available to anyone doesn't mean shit; if even one service is unavailable to person "because of [protected class]" then it's discrimination. This is an irrelevant detail because we really want to convince ourselves that the fact it's restricted to weddings matter when, well, it doesn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ZoraPrime's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: