• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake [W:1685]

Status
Not open for further replies.
LaylaWindu

LaylaWindu

One with the Force
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
1,675
Location
PA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake

The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a $135,000 fine against two Christian bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.The case began back in January 2013, when Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the since-closed Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery just outside Portland, Oregon, cited their religious beliefs when declining to make a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.Following the incident, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins in violation of a 2007 state law that protects the rights of LGBTQ people in employment, housing and public accommodations. In 2015, the couple was ordered to pay the Bowman-Cryers emotional distress damages.The Kleins appealed the decision in March 2017, arguing the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries violated their rights as artists to free speech, their rights to religious freedom and their rights as defendants to a due process.

On Thursday, nearly five years after the incident that ignited the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals sided with the state and upheld the penalty against the Kleins.Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer applauded the ruling through a statement released by their attorney.“It does not matter how you were born or who you love. All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally. Oregon will not allow a ‘Straight Couples Only’ sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores,” the couple stated. Nancy Marcus, an attorney with LGBTQ legal and civil rights group Lambda Legal, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, said the ruling “is both critically important and completely unsurprising.”“The court’s decision is unsurprising because it is consistent with decisions by courts across the country that have similarly refused to create a new constitutional right of businesses to exempt themselves from civil rights laws and harm same-sex couples through discriminatory denials of service,” Marcus told NBC News via email.
Click to expand...

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...n-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-wedding-n833321
 
The ruling seems consistent with the law. But I disagree with the law.
 
Good. If these people want to be open to the public then they need to serve the general public. They're more than welcome to make their restaurant a private location that only accepts club members etc.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The ruling seems consistent with the law. But I disagree with the law.
Click to expand...

I agree it's very consistent but I agree with equal rights, anti discrimination and public accommodation laws. I think they are key to a decent civil society.

Which parts of the law do you disagree with? Employment,Housing and or Public Accommodations? or is ity what groups are protected in one or all of those areas? Gender, religions, race etc?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The ruling seems consistent with the law. But I disagree with the law.
Click to expand...

I'm iffy on that as well. I turned down a commission some time ago because it would have required me to express a message antithetical to my principles and which would not have helped my portfolio, to put it delicately. I'm unclear on whether the ruling sets the precedent that business owners/artists/etc. would be required to express a message counter to their vision or principles.

It's unclear from the article what, exactly the bakers were expected to do differently with the cake in question.
 
Last edited:
Fascism is alive in America. ****ing disgusting.
 
digsbe said:
Fascism is alive in America. ****ing disgusting.
Click to expand...

if Hitler's fascism could have only involved baking cakes for harmless gay folk instead of the genocide of the Jews ........ yep, those 'merican gays are some really dangerous people ...........
 
I have a feeling this will go up one more level...Whether or not the SC will hear it, or how they rule I don’t know

Look for more issues on this....and look for gay artists to be targeted in all sorts of ways not physically, but in their business operations

Use your imagination....the old what’s good for the goose

The religious people in this country have deep pockets, and long memories
 
digsbe said:
Fascism is alive in America. ****ing disgusting.
Click to expand...

it is fascist to compel a business open to the public to sell to gay customers?

was it fascist to compel publicly operated motels to offer rooms to customers who are black?
 
LaylaWindu said:
I agree it's very consistent but I agree with equal rights, anti discrimination and public accommodation laws. I think they are key to a decent civil society.

Which parts of the law do you disagree with? Employment,Housing and or Public Accommodations? or is ity what groups are protected in one or all of those areas? Gender, religions, race etc?
Click to expand...

I am generally against public accommodation laws. I believe that privately owned businesses that provide non-essential goods and services should be able to discriminate for whatever stupid reason they want. I wouldn’t do business with that bigoted bakery but I still believe they should be able to pick and choose who they make cakes for.

It isn’t a litmus test issue for me, though.
 
cuban smokes said:
if Hitler's fascism could have only involved baking cakes for harmless gay folk instead of the genocide of the Jews ........ yep, those 'merican gays are some really dangerous people ...........
Click to expand...

Did I mention Hitler? No, so irrelevant.

The state forcing people to use their talents, craft, and extensions of who they are to support things they believe are wrong is fascism. Do you think White Nationalist Nazi's should be allowed to force someone to use their services to aid their rally? People should have a right to conscience. There is a distinction between not serving someone because they are gay and between not wanting to use a service to advance a gay wedding someone may believe is sinful or wrong.

justabubba said:
it is fascist to compel a business open to the public to sell to gay customers?

was it fascist to compel publicly operated motels to offer rooms to customers who are black?
Click to expand...

See above. Do you think "equality" and protections should extend to the gay sign maker who doesn't want to make "got hates fags" billboards for Westboro because they are a religious group?
 
digsbe said:
Did I mention Hitler? No, so irrelevant.

The state forcing people to use their talents, craft, and extensions of who they are to support things they believe are wrong is fascism. Do you think White Nationalist Nazi's should be allowed to force someone to use their services to aid their rally? People should have a right to conscience. There is a distinction between not serving someone because they are gay and between not wanting to use a service to advance a gay wedding someone may believe is sinful or wrong.



See above. Do you think "equality" and protections should extend to the gay sign maker who doesn't want to make "got hates fags" billboards for Westboro because they are a religious group?
Click to expand...

if folks would just bake a goddamn cake for a goddamn customer, we would not be having this goddamn conversation ..............
 
Cardinal said:
. I'm unclear on whether the ruling sets the precedent that business owners/artists/etc. would be required to express a message counter to their vision or principles.
Click to expand...

It would seem to do so-- depending upon the message.
 
cuban smokes said:
if folks would just bake a goddamn cake for a goddamn customer, we would not be having this goddamn conversation ..............
Click to expand...

Address my point.

Skeptic Bob said:
Well that is a stretch.
Click to expand...

I know it is, but I feel that such laws are totalitarian and violate religious freedoms and someone's ability to operate within the frame of their conscience.
 
For those better informed, what was the baker expected to design for the gay couple?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The ruling seems consistent with the law. But I disagree with the law.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. This seems consistent with the law, but the law isn't a good one. There's an issue of proportionality. That's a stunning fine over a cake worth a few hundred dollars, where a cake could be purchased from many other vendors. It seems ridiculous to destroy a business where there was no real harm. And are other public accommodations pursued with such vigor? How much does this city fine people for parking in a handicapped space?

No question is going to get challenged on constitutional grounds. This isn't finished.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm iffy on that as well. I turned down a commission some time ago because it would have required me to express a message antithetical to my principles and which would not have helped my portfolio, to put it delicately. I'm unclear on whether the ruling sets the precedent that business owners/artists/etc. would be required to express a message counter to their vision or principles.

It's unclear from the article what, exactly the bakers were expected to do differently with the cake in question.
Click to expand...

I think you are protected from doing a message you disagree with. For example, the bakery could probably refuse to write “Gay Pride” on the cake, but they can’t refuse to sell them the cake. I might be talking out of my ass, though.
 
justabubba said:
it is fascist to compel a business open to the public to sell to gay customers?

was it fascist to compel publicly operated motels to offer rooms to customers who are black?
Click to expand...

Public conveyance, housing, and emergency medicine are set aside by law in federal mandates

You can’t discriminate for any of them because they are necessities
 
digsbe said:
Address my point.
Click to expand...


OK, I will address your point: If a Christian does not desire to perform the service of making a cake for a 'gay' wedding in America then the Christian cake baker should move to Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Yemen, or Afghanistan, and be a Muslim, that hates gays. Did Jebus say, "my followers, hate your gay neighbor & do NOT bake your gay neighbor a gay wedding cake, or you shall surly go to Hell?" No, Jebus did not .......... IMO, no matter if one agrees, or disagrees, as long as they are in 'merica they should be amenable to providing such a service to those they may disagree with. 'merica is about integration; if the cake baker is so adverse to gay folk, then move the **** to some other country ...........
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I think you are protected from doing a message you disagree with. For example, the bakery could probably refuse to write “Gay Pride” on the cake, but they can’t refuse to sell them the cake. I might be talking out of my ass, though.
Click to expand...

If the baker was expected to craft a message of some kind that was antithetical to their principles (e.g. "Gays Are Great!"), then my sympathies lie more on their end. And I'll even go one further: if they were even so much as asked to put a decoration that was antithetical to their principles, such as two same-gendered people on the cake, then that would likewise fall into the freedom of artistic message department. But if all they were asked to do was make a regular message-neutral cake and refused to make it for the couple, then my sympathies for the bakers come to a full stop.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The same cake he would have designed for a straight couple.
Click to expand...

If it is as you say, then the baker is crap out of luck as far as I'm concerned.
 
reinoe said:
Good. If these people want to be open to the public then they need to serve the general public. They're more than welcome to make their restaurant a private location that only accepts club members etc.
Click to expand...

This has to be the first time I have ever agreed with you. Are you sure you meant that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom