February 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm #6089VitalogyParticipant
Good. This business broke the law and should be held accountable.
And yet another example of why NOT to mix your politics with business. It would have been alot easier to just bake them the cake.February 3, 2015 at 8:10 am #6119
Broke the law and should pay $150k? That’s outrageous. I hope the vindictive and greedy couple doesn’t see a dime.February 3, 2015 at 8:29 am #6120AmusParticipant
Religious liberty does not include the right to deprive others of theirs.
They should be treated exactly as they would have been had they refused service to a black couple.February 3, 2015 at 9:34 am #6122
Refusing service to someone because of who or what they are or believe is one thing, but to be forced to endorse immoral behavior is entirely different.
Besides that, a $150,000 penalty on a mom and pop store is unjust.February 3, 2015 at 9:52 am #6123duxruleParticipant
Interracial marriage was considered to be “immoral behavior” as recently as 1999.
Sometimes, people NEED to be “forced” to do the right thing.February 3, 2015 at 9:58 am #6124AmusParticipant
…but to be forced to endorse immoral behavior is entirely different.
This needs to be repeated over and over again, regardless if it ever sinks in;
Religious liberty does not include the right to deprive others of theirs.February 3, 2015 at 10:25 am #6127
Making a cake is just making a cake. It’s not an endorsement of any kind. Just a cake.
They are being fined for judging others inappropriately.
If they don’t want to make cakes for the public, they can form a private, bigots only, cake club and do just fine.
They are being fined for ignorance about how that all works.
IMHO, the couple should start a bakery.
Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.February 3, 2015 at 10:30 am #6129BrianlParticipant
“Refusing service to someone because of who or what they are or believe is one thing, but to be forced to endorse immoral behavior is entirely different.
Besides that, a $150,000 penalty on a mom and pop store is unjust.”
According to the state’s Constitution, one cannot be denied public service based on sexual orientation. That’s how the Civil Rights statutes are listed in Oregon.
In order for the cake company to do business in the state of Oregon, they had to obtain a business license. Part of that license mandates that they must adhere to the laws and statutes of the state of Oregon. Since they were open for public business and not a private domain requiring membership (think a country club, for example), they are legally obliged to serve the public. By citing their religious beliefs and denouncing the lesbian couple, they were acting in violation of the Civil Rights statutes of the state.
It’s an open and shut case, and that has been determined by the courts and state now.
How much sympathy I have for the cake business is zero. Bigotry and discrimination are not acceptable.February 3, 2015 at 10:56 am #6130
Say it together kids!
Racism, bigotry and theocracy are completely unacceptable.
I wish I could link you to a great discussion I had with somebody from Alabama last night.
They actually were trying to get me to feel bad, or admit shame over that statement. “I thought liberals were tolerant…” kind of BS.
After the mother of all rants, I responded, “If you can find a rational reason to support the practice of bigotry, racism and theocracy, I’m happy to review my intolerance.”
Or something close to that anyway!
It’s going to take a lot of cases like this, just like it did for interracial marriage, before we really do move on en masse.
And interracial marriage was resolved about the time I was born. Funny, I grew up with that prejudice and had to get past it in my teens, 20 years later.
When I finally actualized it all in my mind, after seeing a family member marry a black woman, who was perfectly great addition to the family, I did feel really stupid for having had to deal with the matter at all.
The pictures above are 100 percent truth. A whole lot of people are going to have to go through that cycle, and then a whole lot more people will have to avoid it, leaving us with little pockets here and there nobody really cares about, other than for comedy value.
Advances in civil rights are just painful. Not for all of us. Either somebody has the experience I did, gets it, and then moves on easily after that, or they don’t have it in them to judge others in the first place. Those are the easy cases.
The hard cases will have to take it in the sack hard a few times, and that’s just how we are as beings. Sad.
You know the former bakery owners –I think that’s right. Didn’t we read they closed up shop after a lack of business?
–those former owners will feel the sting of the unfavorable court decision. And they will feel wronged for a good long time, maybe their whole life.
Sucks, but it’s up to them to get there. They may, or may not get there.
But it’s not about that. It’s all about their peers looking around and realizing the realities are stark, and meaningful. It really isn’t OK to do those things.
They will talk, and their kids will see it all play out and it’s about that.
A small fine wouldn’t get the job done. I’ll bet they don’t get hit with the full $150K. They could, depending on how they present themselves. A little humility goes a long way. This too is up to them.
And that F&B is what makes the fine just. They are going to have to experience real, material, meaningful and significant consequences for the law to do it’s job to improve the lives of people who are the targets of this kind of discrimination.
Sadly, prominent and meaningful examples need to happen, or the whole thing breaks down.
They could have avoided most of the damage. But their convictions exceeded their common sense, and sometimes that condition is expensive.
Maybe their bigot friends can take up a collection. 150 large isn’t that much money. Perhaps they can share the cost of enlightenment with their friends in need of it.February 3, 2015 at 11:02 am #6132
One other thought here:
Remember that law, norms, money and markets, physics discussion I put here every so often?
Those are how we regulate behavior.
Well, the regulatory force of the law has to do with the impact of non-compliance. And that impact is judged relative to harm.
Targets of racism, bigotry and theocracy will suffer many negative events in their lives. The sum of these is a lot of harm. Given a lot of harm, the law needs to have some real teeth, or it’s not effective in preventing that harm.
And we have law where norms are simply not enough. Basic, common sense, social norms are enough to avoid this kind of thing. Just follow the golden rule, consideration due is consideration given kind of thing.
What a great norm! It’s simple, and it’s effective a lot of the time.
Had the bakery owners understood basic human realities, they would not have bumped into the law.
Ignorance can be expensive. So can being shitty, as they are finding out.
Maybe their church can help out with this. And when the mission budget is a bit strained, or the “fill the plate” messages ramp up some, everybody can think hard about why they are in the building and what good can happen instead of judging others out of hand.February 3, 2015 at 12:32 pm #6138VitalogyParticipant
For the record, the $150K is a fine owed to the state, not the couple who were discriminated against.
So calling them greedy is wrong.February 3, 2015 at 12:35 pm #6140
The bakery served gays. They previously served this couple. They could not in good conscience participate in the EVENT–that of a same-sex marriage.
Also, according to one of the owners, at the time Oregon did not recognize same sex marriages and he thought he was within his rights.
The difference between this issue and civil rights is that there will never be Christian recognition of the idea of a same sex marriage. It’s an impossibility. But there will always be Christian support for racial equality and justice for all, from conception until death.
Churches are exempted from having to perform same sex marriages. Why should they be? Would anyone tolerate churches who would not allow interracial marriages?February 3, 2015 at 12:38 pm #6141
And I stand corrected regarding the fine. I thought the couple was going after that amount, especially since they both filed, doubling the amount.
IMHO it would have been awesome if this couple decided to give them a break and show some compassion.February 3, 2015 at 1:02 pm #6144Alfredo_TParticipant
I routinely see signs in businesses with the statement, “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.” These are pre-printed generic plastic signs that can be bought online. Are they legal?
ANYONE could include:
- Somebody who does not speak English
- A person with a service animal
- A barefoot person
- A member of a racial/ethnic minority
- A homosexual
- A person with a noticeable odor (BO, perfume, cologne, etc.)
- A person with an unusual hairstyle
- A person wearing a T-shirt with an objectionable design
- Somebody dressed up as an anthropomorphic rabbit
Surely, at least some of these are protected groups.February 3, 2015 at 1:13 pm #6147BroadwayParticipant
>>people NEED to be “forced” to do the right thing.
wow, and we still live in America?
Is government now a cult?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.