Christian Bakers Who Lost their Business after Homosexual Attack Refuse to Pay $135K

So what?

Their problem.

It doesn't they have every right to say what they think. Some local ordinance doesn't trump the first amendment.

 

The mother isnt a party to the suit.

 

The mother claims and he denies that he quoted a verse labeling it an abomination, after the daughter had already left the building. The mother is not a party to the suit

 

I already linked to an interview with the gay couple where they admitted the baker knew.
The baker also said she knew.

Why would the court docs show every word exchanged between people?

It has nothing to do with the case because they didn't discriminate against gay people.... just the event.

If they discriminated against gay people, surely that exchange would have been in those court docs.
It wasn't brought up by the gays because it destroyed that argument.
Think about it.

You would have to ask her that, not me.

I think it's because she would have made them a cake.
It was her husband who told them "sorry, no".

 

Not really, intent matters. You don't have a first amendment right to assert why you did something, and not be charged with a crime because that admission reveals criminal intent.

Telling someone "I'm at capacity, I can't take another order this week," doesn't create a barrier to a particular part of the community. Even if it's a lie.

Like you said, the problem isn't about not getting a cake. It's about using the cake to create unnecessary division or barriers in the community -- and by doing so breakdown or damage that community.

The victim here isn't the gay couple. It's the community.

​

​

 

First, you present all local, country, state and federal laws on the same page.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I should have been more thorough.
I don't know where I read the part about emotional distress but I guess I took it and ran with it.

And I have to say that facebook stunt they pulled off makes the 135k in damages look less excessive.

Although I still think an owner should be able to lead his business as he wants and sink with it if he's discriminating. Your source implies that this one was already starting to do so.​

 

Constantly declaring that discrimination against homosexuals is the same as was discrimination against blacks is a grotesquely bigoted trivialization of the past history of racism.

Show me any sign that segregated homosexuals and heterosexuals at a drinking fountain.

 

Well, in fairness it's $60,000 for one lesbian, and $75,000 for the other.

Apparently one lesbian suffered more.




Or had a better lawyer.

 

Like chairs, champagne bottles, tuxedos...

They didn't order a gay cake. Just a cake.




​

 

The argument that they didn't discriminate based of the couple but the event WAS brought up in court, and the judge said that there was no difference. If you offer wedding cakes to a straight couple you must offer them to a gay couple.
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf his reasoning on page 32.

 

​

 

it wasn't until the names to put on the cake were given that the baker started having issue with them

 

No one said anything about putting any names on the cake, and the vast majority of wedding cakes do not have names on them at all. The issue was when the bakers husband asked the names of the bride and groom, that does not mean that they wanted the names on the cake. The cake design was never even discussed.

 

A neat cliché, but it does nothing but perpetuate the very inequality that corrodes society. A blind government is a disabled government and a government that puts its own blindfold on , is a complicit government.

 

Where the hell did you get all this? The very provisions under which these penalties have been levied have come under SCOTUS scrutiny and been held as constitutional. And I don't know where you get this broader interpretation of a constitutional 'right to property or to control access'. Do I have to make a list of governmental regulations that involve controlling business or private behavior again for you? How's about I send you a copy of a towns fire or building code before you post this stuff ? Just try to sell some spoiled meat that has not been refrigerated on the open market, and see how your constitutional claim of rights works for you. Hell - beat and starve your dogs, and then tell animal control and the local police to stay off your property, and leave your dogs in your custody.

 

wonder if he is bearing false witness?

 

I'm not arguing a judge's opinion, he's allowed to think what he wants.
I'm just stating what happened.

The facts:
A) Lesbian bought a wedding cake for a hetero wedding.....came back again because she was happy.
B) Same lesbian tried to buy wedding cake for gay wedding.... was refused.

What's the difference between A & B... the customer or the event ?

If the judge says there isn't one, then his schooling failed him.
But if you don't see a difference... I wouldn't admit it.

I don't disagree with that, and they did. They sold this lesbian a wedding cake before.




As for me, I'd have made the cake. I just happen to support their right not to do so.
That's why I point out what actually occurred instead of falling for the "they hate gays and discriminated against them!!!" crybaby whining.

 

False.

The baker had no problem with them.
Her husband had a problem with gay weddings.



Why can't we stick to facts ?

 

she is part of the family of those discriminated against

telling the mom or dad of a inter-racial\same-gender couple their children are abominations is just as wrong imo and does end up effecting the children too

discrimination has ripple effects and doesn't just effect those being discriminated against

.

 

The difference between A and B is the sexual orientation of the people the cake is for.

 

Not really. We gave extra protection to New Orleans when hurricane Katrina hit. FEMA never claimed folks in New Orleans weren't equal, just that they were facing unequal weather.

Recognizing when different kinds of storms hit our society and acting to support the integrity of that society against focused threats isn't saying we don't have an unequal society. It's just saying we're going to bolster protections where the storms come to land and threaten to do the most damage.




​

 

Correct..... the event.

 

Everybody belongs to protected classes. Surprise!

 

that doesn't change the cake. the baker sells cakes, what the buyer does with the cake is up to them