Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

[crandc]

Refusing to sell product to someone is refusing service! Damn, and I thought Jews were good at splitting hairs.

One's home is not the same as a public business. And the law clearly recognizes this. A public business is a public place, people can and do walk in. That's what the business is for, after all. One's home is one's own space. You (should) have every right to close your doors. That is unfortunately not always respected. Denny, you are not a stupid person and not a bigot so will you get off your libertarian "business can do anything they want" high horse and not post ridiculous comments like your home and your business are the same thing? I'm sure you know they are not.

Still waiting to hear what other laws businesses are allowed to break if they feel like it or because Jesus.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Refusing to sell product to someone is refusing service! Damn, and I thought Jews were good at splitting hairs.

One's home is not the same as a public business. And the law clearly recognizes this. A public business is a public place, people can and do walk in. That's what the business is for, after all. One's home is one's own space. You (should) have every right to close your doors. That is unfortunately not always respected. Denny, you are not a stupid person and not a bigot so will you get off your libertarian "business can do anything they want" high horse and not post ridiculous comments like your home and your business are the same thing? I'm sure you know they are not.

Still waiting to hear what other laws businesses are allowed to break if they feel like it or because Jesus.

No it's not. It's different. The bakery could have provided service, they could have provided a cake, but they refused to provide a WEDDING cake. We don't know all the ins and outs. But if they choose to not provide a wedding cake to a couple that cannot legally marry and it's out of the confines of the bakers' religion, that should be there choice, so long as they don't totally blow them off. I dont' care what you think the law says. I'm saying it's ruh-tarded if a law actually forces people to push the envelope on this. It's wrong to completely blow off any service or product. But if that isn't otherwise denied, I see nothing wrong with the fact the bakers didn't want to provide a wedding cake (other than they're bigots).

As I mentioned earlier, I guess I'm not some selfish, helpless person that needs to make a big statement and draw the attention to myself because I wasn't treated fairly. I don't need to be a tattletale. I don't need to make an example. I don't need sympathy. I'd be a bigger person. I'd say, "Sorry you feel the way you do - God will judge you later," bounce and be on my way to a place that wants my money.

The couple is basically forcing the bakers to accept them and their beliefs while cutting down the beliefs of the bakers.

 

[porkchopexpress]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the debater in me finds this argument interesting.

Do you think it changes the argument if you consider that many Christians believe that being gay is a choice? I personally don't believe that being gay was a choice, but for a lot of people that's how they look at it. So when you compare homosexuality with something like being black, they find it ridiculous because the color of your skin is something you're born with. As ridiculous as it is, I've heard people compare being gay with being a pedophile or some kind of pervert, which I find funny because I don't think pedophiles made the choice to be pedophiles either.

Anyway, my point is, if you looked at being gay as a choice, and not something you're born with, is it different than saying "no shirt, no shoes, no service?"

Well since it is already a protected class, then I would think (could be wrong) it is a moot point. If they believe that, then trying to get sexual orientation off that list would be the rout to go. There are just certain things you cannot discriminate based on and whether they like it or not, sexual orientation is one of them.

Now, if I'm mixing all this up and "protected classes" don't apply in this instance, I could be wrong about this all. I just don't see any difference (given that status) between this and segregated restaurants/pools/etc.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

This isn't a good analogy at all. If a muslim owns a venue or catering company, presumedly they wouldn't offer booze at all. Them refusing to offer alcohol is not discriminatory against any particular group, it is just the rule that they have. I would think they wouldn't even have a liquor license if this was the case.

I think people are missing the point. It isn't that they are refusing to do something because of their beliefs, but rather they are refusing to serve (how is selling cake different from serving food?) a customer based on sexual orientation, which has been a protected class in Oregon for years. It would be the same if they refused a cake to a black person and then said, "I won't sell you a cake because you are black".

yeah..aside from assuming a lack of liqour license..you have a good point..

a thought..if there is no legal gay weddings, how can someone demand a gay wedding cake?

 

[donkiez]

I dont know..sexual preference is such a non issue to me..I am beginning to feel that the more "special" these groups become, the less inclined I am to have positive feelings towards them

I think this is the fundamental difference in your view point and mine. I don't view gay people as a special interest group with a sexual preference. I view them as humans with the right to live their life and peruse their happiness in anyway way they see fit, with all the legal rights and privileges that I posses. I don't view their sexual orientation as a preference either, I have know to many gay people to say they just prefer that lifestyle, they ARE that lifestyle. I also view their freedoms to be equal to mine, and maintaining their rights is just as important as maintaining mine.

For example lest compare gay "special interest" to the gun rights "special interest", as I know you feel more passionately towards that issue. I am not a gun guy, I hate guns and do not want to own one or have one in my house. In fact when I hear about how the NRA uses fear mongering, lobbyists, and extreme politics I get put off and feel more negative towards that interest. However I support everyone else's right to bear arms as that is a freedom we should all posses, and by limiting that freedom for other people I am in-turn limiting my freedoms.

In the end we are all selfish and really are passionate about the issues that effect us directly (for the most part), as I'm probably not going to join any pro gun rallies or even any pro gay rallies. I do however work hard in my life at having empathy for everyone though.

 

[porkchopexpress]

yeah..aside from assuming a lack of liqour license..you have a good point..

a thought..if there is no legal gay weddings, how can someone demand a gay wedding cake?

Well, Gresham is only 10 minutes from Vancouver, so that could be a possibility (probably not the case in this instance, but that popped in my head). But maybe that is a technicality they will use to win. They weren't offering because they are against gays (even though they said they are), but because they are against non legally binding ceremonies. Seems like a stretch, but who knows.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

No it's not. It's different. The bakery could have provided service, they could have provided a cake, but they refused to provide a WEDDING cake. We don't know all the ins and outs. But if they choose to not provide a wedding cake to a couple that cannot legally marry and it's out of the confines of the bakers' religion, that should be there choice, so long as they don't totally blow them off. I dont' care what you think the law says. I'm saying it's ruh-tarded if a law actually forces people to push the envelope on this. It's wrong to completely blow off any service or product. But if that isn't otherwise denied, I see nothing wrong with the fact the bakers didn't want to provide a wedding cake (other than they're bigots).

As I mentioned earlier, I guess I'm not some selfish, helpless person that needs to make a big statement and draw the attention to myself because I wasn't treated fairly. I don't need to be a tattletale. I don't need to make an example. I don't need sympathy. I'd be a bigger person. I'd say, "Sorry you feel the way you do - God will judge you later," bounce and be on my way to a place that wants my money.

The couple is basically forcing the bakers to accept them and their beliefs while cutting down the beliefs of the bakers.

ahh I see are on your game..nice post and repped

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I think this is the fundamental difference in your view point and mine. I don't view gay people as a special interest group with a sexual preference. I view them as humans with the right to live their life and peruse their happiness in anyway way they see fit, with all the legal rights and privileges that I posses. I don't view their sexual orientation as a preference either, I have know to many gay people to say they just prefer that lifestyle, they ARE that lifestyle. I also view their freedoms to be equal to mine, and maintaining their rights is just as important as maintaining mine.

For example lest compare gay "special interest" to the gun rights "special interest", as I know you feel more passionately towards that issue. I am not a gun guy, I hate guns and do not want to own one or have one in my house. In fact when I hear about how the NRA uses fear mongering, lobbyists, and extreme politics I get put off and feel more negative towards that interest. However I support everyone else's right to bear arms as that is a freedom we should all posses, and by limiting that freedom for other people I am in-turn limiting my freedoms.

In the end we are all selfish and really are passionate about the issues that effect us directly (for the most part), as I'm probably not going to join any pro gun rallies or even any pro gay rallies. I do however work hard in my life at having empathy for everyone though.

read 114

I think it has far less to do about how it effects me, because for the most part , I dont care. As a mater of fact, I dont feel that I have any right to make someone conform to my ideals, of live their life to please me, as long as there are no laws broken and you do not infringe upon my lifestyle. I dont understand the attraction, I dont believe that being gay was the grand design..but again, it has zero effect on me,so I dont care.

I am of an age that I have seen gays go from being mocked if even mentioned to where it is now trendy,celebrated and privileged...where they once sought inclusion they now demand exception..there in lies my rub

 

[Denny Crane]

Refusing to sell product to someone is refusing service! Damn, and I thought Jews were good at splitting hairs.

One's home is not the same as a public business. And the law clearly recognizes this. A public business is a public place, people can and do walk in. That's what the business is for, after all. One's home is one's own space. You (should) have every right to close your doors. That is unfortunately not always respected. Denny, you are not a stupid person and not a bigot so will you get off your libertarian "business can do anything they want" high horse and not post ridiculous comments like your home and your business are the same thing? I'm sure you know they are not.

Still waiting to hear what other laws businesses are allowed to break if they feel like it or because Jesus.

Your home and business are both your private property. You can decide not to open the store today and go play golf. Private property is private property.

I'm a former smoker. I have no problem with businesses choosing to allow smoking within. They are exercising their property rights. I may choose to patronize these places, or not. I already walk out of places where the music sucks and is too loud.

You do know that laws aren't always good or right?

 

[donkiez]

read 114

I think it has far less to do about how it effects me, because for the most part , I dont care. As a mater of fact, I dont feel that I have any right to make someone conform to my ideals, of live their life to please me, as long as there are no laws broken and you do not infringe upon my lifestyle. I dont understand the attraction, I dont believe that being gay was the grand design..but again, it has zero effect on me,so I dont care.

I am of an age that I have seen gays go from being mocked if even mentioned to where it is now trendy,celebrated and privileged...where they once sought inclusion they now demand exception..there in lies my rub

I read that and I respect that for sure and its better than hating gays. My point though is that like I am told that I need to care about gun rights (rightfully so), you should also care about gay rights for the same reason, even if you disagree with their lifestyle. Freedom is freedom.

 

[Further]

Refusing to sell product to someone is refusing service! Damn, and I thought Jews were good at splitting hairs.

One's home is not the same as a public business. And the law clearly recognizes this. A public business is a public place, people can and do walk in. That's what the business is for, after all. One's home is one's own space. You (should) have every right to close your doors. That is unfortunately not always respected. Denny, you are not a stupid person and not a bigot so will you get off your libertarian "business can do anything they want" high horse and not post ridiculous comments like your home and your business are the same thing? I'm sure you know they are not.

Still waiting to hear what other laws businesses are allowed to break if they feel like it or because Jesus.

I certainly agree with you ethically. I think I also agree with you legally. I guess it just bothers me that it has to be dealt with in the law at all. There is something nice about a personal business being able to make their own decisions on who they serve, but there are just too many bigots in the world.


Just thought of this:
If a bar is legally bound to serve an alcoholic beverage to a pregnant women, I think a bakery can be forced to serve cake to a gay couple.

 

[Denny Crane]

I certainly agree with you ethically. I think I also agree with you legally. I guess it just bothers me that it has to be dealt with in the law at all. There is something nice about a personal business being able to make their own decisions on who they serve, but there are just too many bigots in the world.


Just thought of this:
If a bar is legally bound to serve an alcoholic beverage to a pregnant women, I think a bakery can be forced to serve cake to a gay couple.

Bars aren't legally bound to serve anyone.

They even hire the big brutes to forcibly throw people out. ;-)

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I certainly agree with you ethically. I think I also agree with you legally. I guess it just bothers me that it has to be dealt with in the law at all. There is something nice about a personal business being able to make their own decisions on who they serve, but there are just too many bigots in the world.


Just thought of this:
If a bar is legally bound to serve an alcoholic beverage to a pregnant women, I think a bakery can be forced to serve cake to a gay couple.

hmm the best distinction here so far is between cake and "wedding" cake..as well as the fact that they were not denied service, just a wedding cake. oh and the fact that there are no gay weddings in oregon..thi is a tough subject to even have to think on..it really effects you and I about the same..zero

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Bars aren't legally bound to serve anyone.

They even hire the big brutes to forcibly throw people out. ;-)

YOU HAVE IT!!!! Bakery Bouncers!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

This isn't a good analogy at all. If a muslim owns a venue or catering company, presumedly they wouldn't offer booze at all. Them refusing to offer alcohol is not discriminatory against any particular group, it is just the rule that they have. I would think they wouldn't even have a liquor license if this was the case.

I think people are missing the point. It isn't that they are refusing to do something because of their beliefs, but rather they are refusing to serve (how is selling cake different from serving food?) a customer based on sexual orientation, which has been a protected class in Oregon for years. It would be the same if they refused a cake to a black person and then said, "I won't sell you a cake because you are black".

They weren't refusing overall service or other products. They refused a wedding cake because they did not produce a wedding cake for something that does not exist from their viewpoint. If gay marriage doesn't exist to them, how can they produce a wedding cake? Why should they be forced to?

I buy things all the time. Food, things for the house, various work from contractors, etc. They all tell me what they can and cannot do.

 

[Further]

Bars aren't legally bound to serve anyone.

They even hire the big brutes to forcibly throw people out. ;-)

you are wrong. they may deny service for many reasons, but they are not legally permitted to deny on the basis of race for example, or pregnancy.

I used to be a bartender and had to take the OLCC tests. The Bouncers (I was also a bouncer for a while) can throw people out for many reasons, but if they throw someone out for being Black they will be screwed too.

 

[porkchopexpress]

They weren't refusing overall service or other products. They refused a wedding cake because they did not produce a wedding cake for something that does not exist from their viewpoint. If gay marriage doesn't exist to them, how can they produce a wedding cake? Why should they be forced to?

I buy things all the time. Food, things for the house, various work from contractors, etc. They all tell me what they can and cannot do.

So if a black guy goes into a cafe and says, "I want pie" and is refused because "he is black", the owner can later say "I only refused a specific product and not service or other products?".

I don't get your personal example. Are they refusing you for some reason? If that reason is race/religion/sex/sexual orientation, then they are in the wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

you are wrong. they may deny service for many reasons, but they are not legally permitted to deny on the basis of race for example, or pregnancy.

I used to be a bartender and had to take the OLCC tests. The Bouncers (I was also a bouncer for a while) can throw people out for many reasons, but if they throw someone out for being Black they will be screwed too.

You're too drunk, in my opinion. You may happen to be black, too.

Prove I violated some mythical civil right...

 

[DaLincolnJones]

You're too drunk, in my opinion. You may happen to be black, too.

Prove I violated some mythical civil right...

in todays court of public opinion, it only works the other way around..you have to prove he was drunk, and that you had never said th N work in your life

 

[Denny Crane]

in todays court of public opinion, it only works the other way around..you have to prove he was drunk, and that you had never said th N work in your life

I don't think you are right. I think the bartender has the right to use drunkenness as a reason to refuse to serve.

And for the record, I agree with Further that refusing to bake the cake is morally and ethically wrong, but I also think it's a bad idea to try and legislate morality.

It's a very weird thing. I have two very close friends. One is a gay fellow, the other a rather strict mormon. The two are best buddies. They hang out together, go to each other's homes for meals, etc. Much as any two very good friends would do. One day the mormon told me he refused to do something that would benefit the gay fellow because it would support his lifestyle. As far as I know, they're still friends.

Go figure.

 

[Further]

You're too drunk, in my opinion. You may happen to be black, too.

Prove I violated some mythical civil right...

ten blacks enter, one at a time, each turned away for being "too drunk" they will have a whippersnapper of a lawsuit and own the bar before too long.



p.s. I think this was my first ever written use of the term whippersnapper.

 

[Further]

The bartender can't use drunkenness if the person has not had a drink yet. There was even a lawsuit a while back where a bar was sued because someone with a speech impediment was refused service for being drunk when they hadn't had anything yet. I'm not sure who won, or where the case took place, but I remember it making the news around a decade ago.

 

[Further]

I don't think you are right. I think the bartender has the right to use drunkenness as a reason to refuse to serve.

And for the record, I agree with Further that refusing to bake the cake is morally and ethically wrong, but I also think it's a bad idea to try and legislate morality.

It's a very weird thing. I have two very close friends. One is a gay fellow, the other a rather strict mormon. The two are best buddies. They hang out together, go to each other's homes for meals, etc. Much as any two very good friends would do. One day the mormon told me he refused to do something that would benefit the gay fellow because it would support his lifestyle. As far as I know, they're still friends.

Go figure.

Did the Mormon refuse to give his friend a blow job, cause if that's the case, well, he's just not a good friend.

 

[Denny Crane]

Did the Mormon refuse to give his friend a blow job, cause if that's the case, well, he's just not a good friend.

It is what it is. True story.

 

[Sedatedfork]

So if a black guy goes into a cafe and says, "I want pie" and is refused because "he is black", the owner can later say "I only refused a specific product and not service or other products?".

I don't get your personal example. Are they refusing you for some reason? If that reason is race/religion/sex/sexual orientation, then they are in the wrong.

Or a more close example. What if the baker is morally against interracial marriages. Listen black guy, I don't have anything against black people. I just don't believe that black people should be able to get married (either legally or religiously or whatever) to white people. I will gladly sell you a cake. I just won't bake you a wedding cake for an interracial marriage, because it's against my reading of the bible. Is this any different? I don't have anything against your gender, I just don't think it's moral for you to marry someone else of the same gender.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Sexual orientation is still a protected class though. Like sex, race, age and religion. You don't get to decide which equates with the others.

But you do get to decide to be gay.

Just sayin'.

 

[porkchopexpress]

But you do get to decide to be gay.

Just sayin'.

Regardless of your outdated opinion, that doesn't change the fact that it is a protected class.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Regardless of your outdated opinion, that doesn't change the fact that it is a protected class.

How the hell is the fact that someone can decide to be gay an "outdated opinion?"

 

[porkchopexpress]

How the hell is the fact that someone can decide to be gay an "outdated opinion?"

Fine, scrub that part from my quote. It still stands true that whatever your opinion may be, it doesn't change that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Refusing to sell product to someone is refusing service! Damn, and I thought Jews were good at splitting hairs.

One's home is not the same as a public business. And the law clearly recognizes this. A public business is a public place, people can and do walk in. That's what the business is for, after all. One's home is one's own space. You (should) have every right to close your doors. That is unfortunately not always respected. Denny, you are not a stupid person and not a bigot so will you get off your libertarian "business can do anything they want" high horse and not post ridiculous comments like your home and your business are the same thing? I'm sure you know they are not.

Still waiting to hear what other laws businesses are allowed to break if they feel like it or because Jesus.

Crandc, you are right on point. Selling a product, selling services that is not a legal distinction that will make a difference in the case (the business is selling cakes and they denied their business, open to the public, to the couple based on their sexual orientation.) Whether the bakery makes the cake themselves or sell premade cakes isn't the issue. The issue is if a business can deny you what the are in business for based on your sexual orientation.

Also, as you point out, there is an obvious difference between a private home and a public business.

An interesting, and much more important, issue dealing with religion here in Oregon was a case in which a family's religious belief prohibited doctors (modern medicine) from helping if someone is sick. One family refused to take their child to a doctor (instead they just prayed) and the child died of complications that could have been resolved by modern medicine. The parents were charged with negligent homicide and used their religious faith as a defense. The jury did not buy this religious defense and convicted the parents . . . now that is what the court system should be used for, IMO.