• 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.
Cephus said:
Bet they're not going to care about that since it doesn't affect them personally. Still, it was signed into law by the President, not by an act of Congress, so that's hard to call either way.
Click to expand...

It went through Congress, and was signed by the President.
 
WillyPete said:
Is an agreement to abide by relevant law not part of receiving a business license?
Click to expand...

Show me 1) that they were required to have a business license, and 2) that such an agreement was part of it. Because the answer to your question is no, not always, and not every business is required to have a business license.

They're not in business now, and they'll have a hard time starting up again, if they flatly refuse to abide by the law.
Click to expand...

Whatever happens in the future has nothing to do with this case. Any business license they may have had is irrelevant to it.

And when that day comes, we'll all have a lot of reconsidering to do.

That said, public accommodation law has been around for a while, so a Constitutional challenge seems like a longshot, though by all means run with that.
Click to expand...

Public accommodation law has gone up against First Amendment issues before, and lost.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/557/case.html
 
Desert Storm said:
I'm making light of both sides, the bakers are idiots for refusing to bake a stupid cake, and the Lesbian couple also share a bit of blame since they wanted to seriously punish them instead of simply walking across the street to another bakery which probably wouldve served them.

This case happened in Oregon, not exactly a Christian, Republican State.
Sooner or later they wouldve found an gay-friendly bakery.

You Americans get worked up over the stupidest little things


EDIT: bakers are also idiots. Stop mixing religion with your business FFS!!!
Click to expand...

I find it particularly unfair and also ridiculous that you would expect a lesbian to wander around a town looking for a place that will serve her. It wouldn't be such a waste of time if stores posted "No homosexuals" signs, but then that would be illegal. Just like saying, "No homosexuals," inside the shop.
 
AGENT J said:
While I full disagree because I think these laws represent some of the best things with our society and civility at least what you are saying here has some logical consistency. I wouldnt support it because it would still allow large pockets of bigotry and discrimination to happen and Im just to against treating people as lessers. I dont feel a person should ever have to worry about being denied service based on race, religion, sex, etc History and even current events prove we need these laws. But again, at least your reasoning is against them all and consistent. In the history of DP on this topic many people (of the minority that support discrimination) here are just fine with the protections against gender and race and religion but THIS one against sexual orientation bothers them. . . thats a crock.

Its also a crock when the baker magically has no problem giving wedding cakes to different religions or too people that have no religion BUT they cant do it for gays . . .riiiiiiiight.

If people are against all nondiscrimination laws or against them all in certain situations (like you) thats fine, i dont agree but thats fine. People that magically just dont like it for sexual orientation are showing thier hand.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can definitely tell when people start picking and choosing when it is okay to discriminate and when not -- just because of the class being discriminated against.

I heard the story of a senator and his daughter flying on his private plane and a couple of other politicians were there. The girl was 14 as I remember. They were all anti-gay and were discussing what they could do to win their position. The senator asked his daughter, who responded, "You've already lost, dad." She said that the kids her age had nothing against homosexuality and that her dad was fighting a battle that he could never win.

That's pretty much how I feel. I think we'll still see holdouts, but they're often the old and bitter ones, and, they're a dying breed. The future looks bright and the rest of us are moving on to a kinder and more accepting society.

Homophobia is over, those who still preach it don't know that they lost.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
On 5/18/07 when they registered their business with the Oregon Secretary of State
Click to expand...

Registering the business doesn't mean they agreed to any such thing. Do you have language?
 
HowardBThiname said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "places of public accommodation," but a number of people run businesses out of their own homes and, in the course of doing so, deal with the public. Some of the more common ones are cake decorating, hair styling and massage therapy. My niece will be getting her massage certification at the end of March and she wants to do massages at her apartment after she finishes her full-time job (warden). She's already cleared her preliminary license through the City, and eventually she wants to build up a big enough clientele that she can quit her job as a warden, which she really doesn't like.

She has mentioned not wanting to take on male clients until she gets enough money to open her own place, so, from what I understand, she's just going to be offering massages to women as long as she only has her apartment.

While the law may state that she can't turn a client down (based on his sex) if she's offering services to other paying clients, I think there should be an exception. She's simply not comfortable having scantily dressed men alone with her in her apartment. Her goal is to open a larger studio with yoga and couple other things, but she can't do that until she saves up the money. Plus, she doesn't want any hint of impropriety.

I think that's fair. But, if I understand the law correctly, it might not be legal.
Click to expand...

I mean it as the law defines it.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/civil_rights_act.html

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

I'm not certain, but I think your niece will be allowed to discriminate in her private residence.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Yeah, you can definitely tell when people start picking and choosing when it is okay to discriminate and when not -- just because of the class being discriminated against.

I heard the story of a senator and his daughter flying on his private plane and a couple of other politicians were there. The girl was 14 as I remember. They were all anti-gay and were discussing what they could do to win their position. The senator asked his daughter, who responded, "You've already lost, dad." She said that the kids her age had nothing against homosexuality and that her dad was fighting a battle that he could never win.

That's pretty much how I feel. I think we'll still see holdouts, but they're often the old and bitter ones, and, they're a dying breed. The future looks bright and the rest of us are moving on to a kinder and more accepting society.

Homophobia is over, those who still preach it don't know that they lost.
Click to expand...

Amen Amen Amen
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I find it particularly unfair and also ridiculous that you would expect a lesbian to wander around a town looking for a place that will serve her. It wouldn't be such a waste of time if stores posted "No homosexuals" signs, but then that would be illegal. Just like saying, "No homosexuals," inside the shop
Click to expand...
Sure, maybe you're right. But if it was just me I couldnt be bothered to make a federal case out of all this, I would just quickly move on to the next bakery whom I'm sure would be happy to serve me.

Now if I lived in a town or city that EXCLUSIVELY refused to serve a gay couple (within like 20 miles or so) then you'd have have a point. Otherwise I couldnt be bothered (but thats just me).

Its the revenge factor I have a problem with I guess.
I get the feeling gays just wanna get even, and thats very childish IMO
 
Harshaw said:
Registering the business doesn't mean they agreed to any such thing. Do you have language?
Click to expand...

You don't "agree" to follow laws. You do or you suffer the consequences if you get caught. The laws of public accommodation did not apply to the bakers until they voluntarily decided to register and operate a place of public accommodation. Like the laws of the road don't apply to you until you decide to drive. They were required by law to serve the lesbian couple. They refused. They were punished accordingly.
 
Harshaw said:
Show me 1) that they were required to have a business license, and 2) that such an agreement was part of it. Because the answer to your question is no, not always, and not every business is required to have a business license.
Click to expand...

Nah, that sounds really boring. I'm ok with knowing public accommodation law applied to them, and they were responsible for knowing that.

If it didn't stem from a business license, then I guess I'm not ready for the bar exam yet. :(


Public accommodation law has gone up against First Amendment issues before, and lost.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/557/case.html
Click to expand...

Time will tell.
 
Desert Storm said:
Sure, maybe you're right. But if it was just me I couldnt be bothered to make a federal case out of all this, I would just quickly move on to the next bakery whom I'm sure would be happy to serve me.

Now if I lived in a town or city that EXCLUSIVELY refused to serve a gay couple (within like 20 miles or so) then you'd have have a point. Otherwise I couldnt be bothered (but thats just me).

Its the revenge factor I have a problem with I guess.
I get the feeling gays just wanna get even, and thats very childish IMO
Click to expand...

Revenge factor? Thats just illogical.
Why is it revenge to stand up for yourself and turn in somebody who broke the law against you? Again what other crimes do you hold this same attitude for? theft? assault? rape? sexual assault? What other groups do you feel that way about? women? blacks?
 
IMO it makes a difference in whether or not gays are a protected class in that state (which they arent or werent at the time, correct? And currently gays are not a federally protected class)

*IF* gays were a protected class, then I would compare this hypothetically to a baker that objected (pre-civil rights legislation or now) to creating a wedding cake for a bi-racial couple. Many objected to bi-racial marriage for religious reasons.

Should that baker be allowed to not take their business? Or is that discrimination?
 
WillyPete said:
Nah, that sounds really boring. I'm ok with knowing public accommodation law applied to them, and they were responsible for knowing that.

If it didn't stem from a business license, then I guess I'm not ready for the bar exam yet. :(
Click to expand...

Guess not.
 
WillyPete said:
Nah, that sounds really boring. I'm ok with knowing public accommodation law applied to them, and they were responsible for knowing that.
Click to expand...
Of course they did.

It seems silly for someone to suggest PA laws didn't apply to a PA
If it didn't stem from a business license, then I guess I'm not ready for the bar exam yet. :(
Click to expand...

They were required to have a bakery license, but I'm sure Harshaw will split some some fine pepper hairs out of it.

ORS 625.020¹
License required to operate bakery

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, no person shall operate or participate in the operation of any bakery within this state without a bakery license for that bakery, issued and in effect under ORS 625.010 (Definitions for ORS 625.010 to 625.270) to 625.270 (Unlawful sale prohibited).

(2) A license is not required for a domestic kitchen type bakery that is operated in behalf of a nonprofit institution or is otherwise not operated for profit. [Amended by 1975 c.312 §1]
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Business license? do in order for me to sell cakes I need a license? and that is freedom?


you are missing my point.
Click to expand...

I am willing to sacrifice a little bit of freedom so that bakeries don't bake glass shards in my cake and restaurants don't serve me rancid steaks.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
You don't "agree" to follow laws. You do or you suffer the consequences if you get caught. The laws of public accommodation did not apply to the bakers until they voluntarily decided to register and operate a place of public accommodation. Like the laws of the road don't apply to you until you decide to drive. They were required by law to serve the lesbian couple. They refused. They were punished accordingly.
Click to expand...

:shrug: You were the one who said they did agree.

MateoMtnClimber said:
ReverendHellh0und said:
When did they voluntarily agree to it?
Click to expand...

On 5/18/07 when they registered their business with the Oregon Secretary of State
Click to expand...

This supposed, actual "voluntary agreement" was a specifically-argued point.
 
Desert Storm said:
Sure, maybe you're right. But if it was just me I couldnt be bothered to make a federal case out of all this, I would just quickly move on to the next bakery whom I'm sure would be happy to serve me.

Now if I lived in a town or city that EXCLUSIVELY refused to serve a gay couple (within like 20 miles or so) then you'd have have a point. Otherwise I couldnt be bothered (but thats just me).

Its the revenge factor I have a problem with I guess.
I get the feeling gays just wanna get even, and thats very childish IMO
Click to expand...

Courts don't reward revenge. That's not what it's about for, I imagine, almost every gay person who experiences discrimination (all of them) and then sues for equal rights (some of them) anyway. It's about principle. I see no equitable and realistic way of enforcing laws just in small towns or towns with only one bakery, one hotel, etc.
 
Lursa said:
IMO it makes a difference in whether or not gays are a protected class in that state (which they arent or werent at the time, correct? And currently gays are not a federally protected class)

*IF* gays were a protected class, then I would compare this hypothetically to a baker that objected (pre-civil rights legislation or now) to creating a wedding cake for a bi-racial couple. Many objected to bi-racial marriage for religious reasons.

Should that baker be allowed to not take their business? Or is that discrimination?
Click to expand...

IN Oregon the best of my knowledge they were, sexual orientation was and is protected there. Per the article protections started for sexual orientation in 2007, this case started in 2013 . . .so it seems not only were they protected but these morons bigots had more than enough time to adjust

so you are correct and that is an accurate comparison. Whats funny is why didnt this baker deny wedding cakes to other religions or nonreligious people? Did they make everybody who asked for a cake disclose thier religion and divorce status? seems to me if they didnt its just more evidence to the fact this is about the gays. Its obvioua as can be.
 
AGENT J said:
IN Oregon the best of my knowledge they were, sexual orientation was and is protected there. Per the article protections started for sexual orientation in 2007, this case started in 2013 . . .so it seems not only were they protected but these morons bigots had more than enough time to adjust

so you are correct and that is an accurate comparison. Whats funny is why didnt this baker deny wedding cakes to other religions or nonreligious people? Did they make everybody who asked for a cake disclose thier religion and divorce status? seems to me if they didnt its just more evidence to the fact this is about the gays. Its obvioua as can be.
Click to expand...

It's not a sin to be of a different religion or non-religious. Nor is being divorced unless you are a Catholic. But AFAIK, it's a general Christian tenet that homosexuality is a sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom