Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BLAZINGGIANTS again.

That was damn funny...and heartbreakingly true.

Thanks, maxi-pad. Apparently you're alone in your thoughts. Or everyone else cant admit it. LOL.

 

[KingSpeed]

It's freedom. I also have the freedom to boycott any business that doesn't serve blacks.

Freedom is awesome and terrible both at the same time. Yet I far prefer it over someone dictating me what to think and do.

Yet you're dictating the status of my marriage and what you think I should think and do.

 

[KingSpeed]

You claim to believe in freedom. Yet, you got married, and you had to fight to marry.

Everyone knows you lose your freedom as soon as you get married. So, you essentially fought to give up your freedom. :MARIS61:

Not at all. Not in my marriage. And I didn't fight. I donated a little bit of money but it was other people who fought for me and I'm thankful for them.

 

[maxiep]

Yet you're dictating the status of my marriage and what you think I should think and do.

Nope. Just separating the temporal from the spiritual. We're not the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[MarAzul]

Well the people who owned the bakery actually had to close because of continuous protester since the incident. And it was because of "Wedding Cake" not the cake that they refused due to their religious principles.

Too bad the people of Portland have become such bigots that they can not leave people room to have and practice their religion. It is also too bad that Gay people can not respect the views of others, that getting their way is the only thing that counts. They are not Gay in the original sense of the word, selfishly and irreligious would have been more descriptive words for the group to usurp.

As a student of religion you also must include the non religious in the study, including the atheists and the heathenish. Running this bakery out of business seems to be more heathenish that Gay, certainly irreligious.

 

[e_blazer]

This case seems pretty easy to figure out to me. The bakery was a business open to the public and they refused service (making and selling a wedding cake) to a lesbian couple based on their sexual orientation.

Law in Oregon says you can't do that. The bakery owner wants to be able to make that decision so they shut down the public business and will now be making cakes privately out of their own home and can refuse to make a cake for anyone they want.

Kind of sucks for the bakery, but so do a lot of other things about running a business . . . so either play by the rules or don't open a business. Simple enough.

I understand people don't agree with the law, but the law itself seems pretty simple to understand.

I wonder what the reaction would be to this whole brouhaha if the situation were reversed. Say that a gay couple running a bakery is asked to provide a wedding cake to a Christian couple attending a church known for teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. If the gay couple, operating a business that is a public accommodation, says that they won't provide a cake to the couple because of their church's "hateful" teachings they would be discriminating against a protected class (religion) yet somehow I suspect the whole take by the press and the LGBT community would be different.

In my view, the Christian couple are totally off base in their position. They seem to have decided that they won't provide their services to individuals engaged in one "sinful" practice, yet they ignore the multiplicities of other "sinful" behaviors that could be picked out of the Bible. They presumably provided cakes to heterosexual couples who may have been having sexual relations outside of marriage prior to their wedding. What about couples who have been previously divorced for non-scriptural reasons? Smokers? Dancers? Tattooed people? Women who cut their hair or appear in public during their menstrual cycles? There are certainly passages in the Bible that speak ill of all of those things and many more. If Christians were to only provide services to people who were not sinners, they wouldn't be in business long. I think that Jesus dealt with this whole issue of worrying about other people's sins pretty clearly when he told the mob of men who were eager to stone an adulteress to death that he who is without sin should throw the first stone. In this case, maybe it's cake rather than a stone.

 

[maxiep]

The reason why they declined to fill this order doesn't matter to me. What is important to me is that every person who runs a business, or provides a good or a service, has the right to accept or decline business as they please.

 

[e_blazer]

The reason why they declined to fill this order doesn't matter to me. What is important to me is that every person who runs a business, or provides a good or a service, has the right to accept or decline business as they please.

I understand where you're coming from, Maxi, but if you're open to the public, a business has to comply with nondiscrimination laws:

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx#state

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

We all see the law. It's been talked about to no end throughout this thread. Those that disagree that the bakers should be punished are saying that the law is bad. I believe the law, as written, is not allowing the people to practice their religion. It's in violation of the separation of church and state. The bakers have never otherwise refused service to customers. They simply did not provide a wedding cake for a gay couple, as the "wedding" piece of the equation is something their religion does not believe in.

 

[maxiep]

I understand where you're coming from, Maxi, but if you're open to the public, a business has to comply with nondiscrimination laws:



http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx#state

I get there is a law, I simply disagree with it. I also realize it puts me in a very small minority.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I get there is a law, I simply disagree with it. I also realize it puts me in a very small minority.

Judging by the thread, and from those I know (not necessarily in regards to this specific case, but in general), there are a lot more people that agree with you than you think.

 

[e_blazer]

We all see the law. It's been talked about to no end throughout this thread. Those that disagree that the bakers should be punished are saying that the law is bad. I believe the law, as written, is not allowing the people to practice their religion. It's in violation of the separation of church and state. The bakers have never otherwise refused service to customers. They simply did not provide a wedding cake for a gay couple, as the "wedding" piece of the equation is something their religion does not believe in.

I suspect that they could have avoided this whole problem if they had posted a sign at their establishment stating that they reserved the right to refuse to add text that they found objectionable on any of their decorated products. Provide a nice cake stating the couple's name and congratulating them. Any text referring to their wedding would have to be added elsewhere.

 

[e_blazer]

I get there is a law, I simply disagree with it. I also realize it puts me in a very small minority.

There are a lot of laws I don't agree with either, but in my business I comply with those that are in effect even while I may work behind the scenes to change ones I find objectionable.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I suspect that they could have avoided this whole problem if they had posted a sign at their establishment stating that they reserved the right to refuse to add text that they found objectionable on any of their decorated products. Provide a nice cake stating the couple's name and congratulating them. Any text referring to their wedding would have to be added elsewhere.

You can't force someone to congratulate someone for something they don't believe exists.

 

[MarAzul]

I understand where you're coming from, Maxi, but if you're open to the public, a business has to comply with nondiscrimination laws:



http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx#state

Is that the Law? Or a department information guide? Are not all laws part of the Oregon Revised Statutes for the State of Oregon?

Anyway, reading that law it was the Bakery people that had their rights trampled. They are members of a protected group based upon religion. The Gay couple were not discriminated against for their sexual orientation (a protected group). They asked for a "Wedding" cake implying the action of being Married. Refusing to assist with activity that violates religious principles is not an act discriminating against a protected group, it is a refusal to participate in an activity that violates a religious value by a member of a religious group ( a protected group).

I am sure the Gay people could have bought all the cakes they wish.

Ah yes here it is Oregon Statutes 659A.403

In reading the actual Law, I don't believe the Gay were denied service for sexual orientation.
I believe they were denied service for asking for services that offended the religious principles of
people of a religious protected group.
If the members of the sexual orientation protected group had ask for a cake, service would no doubt have been rendered.

Had this case actually went to court, the people of Portland might have learned, but instead the hounded a small business until they felt they had to surrender to undo public pressure.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/659a.html

 

[Denny Crane]

The link and statute you cite is the law violated by the bakery.

659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

The religious majority is not a protected group by any stretch of the imagination. But feel free to stretch yours anyway.

 

[e_blazer]

The link and statute you cite is the law violated by the bakery.

659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

The religious majority is not a protected group by any stretch of the imagination. But feel free to stretch yours anyway.

It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

There's nothing said about a "protected group" or a requirement that the law only applies to minorities. It just says that if you operate a place of "public accommodation" then you can't discriminate between customers based upon any of the listed factors.

 

[Denny Crane]

Anyway, reading that law it was the Bakery people that had their rights trampled. They are members of a protected group based upon religion. The Gay couple were not discriminated against for their sexual orientation (a protected group). They asked for a "Wedding" cake implying the action of being Married. Refusing to assist with activity that violates religious principles is not an act discriminating against a protected group, it is a refusal to participate in an activity that violates a religious value by a member of a religious group ( a protected group).

I am sure the Gay people could have bought all the cakes they wish.

Ah yes here it is Oregon Statutes 659A.403

In reading the actual Law, I don't believe the Gay were denied service for sexual orientation.
I believe they were denied service for asking for services that offended the religious principles of
people of a religious protected group.
If the members of the sexual orientation protected group had ask for a cake, service would no doubt have been rendered.

Had this case actually went to court, the people of Portland might have learned, but instead the hounded a small business until they felt they had to surrender to undo public pressure.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/659a.html

ho hum

 

[e_blazer]

I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with MarAzul's interpretation of the situation. The Christian couple were the ones operating a business as a place of public accommodation. That means that they can't discriminate in the services they offer based on any of the factors listed in the law. That said, I still think that they could have reserved the right to refuse to put any decorative touches or text on one of their cakes if they found it to be something they objected to.

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with MarAzul's interpretation of the situation. The Christian couple were the ones operating a business as a place of public accommodation. That means that they can't discriminate in the services they offer based on any of the factors listed in the law. That said, I still think that they could have reserved the right to refuse to put any decorative touches or text on one of their cakes if they found it to be something they objected to.

I think we agree on the law part. Whether the law is correct is another issue.

 

[e_blazer]

I think we agree on the law part. Whether the law is correct is another issue.

I'm not quite the libertarian that you seem to be, Denny, but in general I'm against government using it's powers to force a social engineering agenda. Denying people housing or the right to vote is one thing. A business owner making a choice about providing a service that simply would require going to another bakery is another. Where to draw the line is always going to be a matter of debate.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not quite the libertarian that you seem to be, Denny, but in general I'm against government using it's powers to force a social engineering agenda. Denying people housing or the right to vote is one thing. A business owner making a choice about providing a service that simply would require going to another bakery is another. Where to draw the line is always going to be a matter of debate.

I'm OK with denying housing as long as there's no collusion do deprive a protected group of the right to live in an entire neighborhood.

I tend to have a very favorable view of people and expect they can all be excellent under the right circumstances. And the primary circumstance is that govt. protects people's right to property and to not be lynched if they become too successful.

 

[MarAzul]

ho hum

Ah! I see you understand. Perhaps the day will come when you too can add a bit, but thanks for acknowledging.

 

[Further]

I'm OK with denying housing as long as there's no collusion do deprive a protected group of the right to live in an entire neighborhood.

I tend to have a very favorable view of people and expect they can all be excellent under the right circumstances. And the primary circumstance is that govt. protects people's right to property and to not be lynched if they become too successful.

just because there is no collusion doesn't mean that the de facto result will be that a group can't find housing in an area. My grandmother (about 20 years ago) owned two apartment buildings in West Hartford CT. and her buildings were mostly black. I asked about this and she said that none of the other rentals in the area would rent to blacks, which allowed her to charge more and not discriminate. So the result was that the Blacks who wanted to live in that neighborhood had to pay 20% more than the whites. It wasn't collusion, it was just that there were a lot of racist building owners.

 

[Denny Crane]

just because there is no collusion doesn't mean that the de facto result will be that a group can't find housing in an area. My grandmother (about 20 years ago) owned two apartment buildings in West Hartford CT. and her buildings were mostly black. I asked about this and she said that none of the other rentals in the area would rent to blacks, which allowed her to charge more and not discriminate. So the result was that the Blacks who wanted to live in that neighborhood had to pay 20% more than the whites. It wasn't collusion, it was just that there were a lot of racist building owners.

The civil rights act was enacted 50 years ago. Apparently govt. law doesn't help.

And the smart guy is the one that will rent to the black families for 19% more and undercut your grandma.

 

[Further]

The civil rights act was enacted 50 years ago. Apparently govt. law doesn't help.

And the smart guy is the one that will rent to the black families for 19% more and undercut your grandma.

there are limited apartment buildings and owners. In this case in the area there were perhaps 15-20 apartment buildings and my guess is only a few owners. So who is going to cut in at 19%, the other owners won't rent to blacks, and why do people have to pay 19% more because their skin is Black. It's BS for anyone to have to pay 1% more because of the color of their skin.

Shit moves slow, and I would love for that to change, but if you are claiming that there has not been tremendous movement over the past 50 years on racism, that's BS also, it seems to me that many of those laws have been beneficial.

 

[Denny Crane]

there are limited apartment buildings and owners. In this case in the area there were perhaps 15-20 apartment buildings and my guess is only a few owners. So who is going to cut in at 19%, the other owners won't rent to blacks, and why do people have to pay 19% more because their skin is Black. It's BS for anyone to have to pay 1% more because of the color of their skin.

Shit moves slow, and I would love for that to change, but if you are claiming that there has not been tremendous movement over the past 50 years on racism, that's BS also, it seems to me that many of those laws have been beneficial.

I made no such claims. Other than an observation that the civil rights act passed 50 years ago forbids your grandmother 20 years ago from charging the extra 20%.

And I am reasonably sure that someone would cut in at 19% for the money. And someone else then at 18%.

I am also absolutely sure that the bulk of institutional racism is government, not 15-20 building owners in some neighborhood.

 

[MarAzul]

I'm not quite the libertarian that you seem to be, Denny, but in general I'm against government using it's powers to force a social engineering agenda. Denying people housing or the right to vote is one thing. A business owner making a choice about providing a service that simply would require going to another bakery is another. Where to draw the line is always going to be a matter of debate.

I gather you do agree that the couple (gay) were not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, a protected "class" ( I should have used Class instead of group above). It was the implied act, the Wedding that was the issue. No possible discrimination could have occurred because of not providing a Wedding cake, since same sex marriage in Oregon is not legal and requiring any person to participle in preparation when it would violate their religious principle would in it's self be discrimination as well as an unreasonable application of this statute. How could anyone be in-violation of this statute for not suppling condiments or cake for an illegal event? It doesn't matter at all whether the hopeful buyers are or are not a member of a protected class, it is a ridiculous application and therefore completely wrong to harass these people out of business. It was shameful.

 

[Further]

I made no such claims. Other than an observation that the civil rights act passed 50 years ago forbids your grandmother 20 years ago from charging the extra 20%.
oh, missed that point. Ya, it was wrong of her, she was just charging what people would pay, and because others wouldn't rent to Blacks that price was high. But she was wrong to take advantage of other people being racists.
And I am reasonably sure that someone would cut in at 19% for the money. And someone else then at 18%.
But nobody did. There were only a few owners, and the belief was that if you rented to blacks, in the end it would cost more because they would trash the place or bring in a criminal element. And perhaps there were some blacks and also some whites that would do this, but they just based it on skin color alone. You can be reasonably sure all you want, but it didn't happen.
I am also absolutely sure that the bulk of institutional racism is government, not 15-20 building owners in some neighborhood.
Just to clarify, 15-20 buildings, not building owners. Perhaps 3-4 owners.

I don't think it was an either or, the institutional racism certainly existed in govt and landlords.

...

 

[Denny Crane]

...

If it is one owner, multiple buildings, it is collusion.

The institutional racism in landlords came out of govt.

Plessy v. Ferguson was the case that decided "separate but equal." The railroad wanted to NOT segregate because it cost more to have extra cars to carry black folk. The court (government) ruled against the private sector company. The separate but equal bit was established in law after law for decades. Jim Crow.

The Bus company in Selma that was boycotted didn't allow blacks on the front of the bus because it was the state or city law, not their own rule.

On the other hand...

Baseball integrated because the Negro Leagues made more money than the Majors. 1947 was 17 years before the civil rights act.

Those infamous lunch counters were becoming unsegregated, too. Without govt. help.

It's against the law to shine shoes in public in D.C. Guess why?

The laws govern how black people can use hair care products and prevent them from making a living as taxi drivers (car, check, map, check, ability to negotiate a fee, check).