Daniel2 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Breaking news from just today regarding the bakery that refused service. The cost of discrimination is high:Ore. bakery will have to pay same-sex couple up to $150Khttp://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/Sara Roth, KGW.com Staff1:25 p.m. PST February 2, 2015GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery discriminated against a same-sex couple who wanted to purchase a wedding cake, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced Monday.The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to pay the couple up to $150,000, BOLI spokesman Charlie Burr said. The exact amount will be determined at a hearing on March 10.In Jan. 2013, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes refused to sell her and her fiancée a cake for their upcoming wedding. Bowman said Aaron Klein, the co-owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, said the couple's union was an "abomination unto the lord."Bowman filed an anti-discrimination complaint with BOLI later that year, alleging that the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of Oregonians who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender."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," Burr said.Although the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa are religious, the bakery is not a religious institution under law.The BOLI Interim Order announced Feb. 2 found sufficient evidence that the Kleins discriminated against the same-sex couple.The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa will have to pay up to $75,000 per person who filed the complaint, which means the same-sex couple could be awarded up to $150,000, Burr said.The Kleins will not be penalized for speaking about the issue on Christian television and radio programs.Sweet Cakes closed its doors in Dec. 2013, in the midst of the public backlash from the investigation. The owner of the bakery said she would keep baking cakes at a home-based bakery. Edited February 3, 2015 by Daniel2
USU78 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Breaking news from just today regarding the bakery that refused service. The cost of discrimination is high:because he isn't a bully at all, is he? 1
Daniel2 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) because he isn't a bully at all, is he?Another thoughtful, substantive, reasoned, respectful, rational response....Oh, wait. It's just another snide drive-by comment reducing the issue to a soundbite/bumpersticker slogan.What that's all you're getting in response, it's clear that the other side has nothing of substance left to offer.Religion is not a justifiable reason to refuse service to another person or group of people that are protected by anti-discrimination laws. No amount of weeping, wailing, gnashing your teeth, or kicking against the pricks will change that. Moving to Russia might, though. By the way: I highly recommend seeing the movie Selma. Edited February 3, 2015 by Daniel2
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Oh no! You're being sucked into the void!Run away!Try to remember that this is about saying No! to the government when or if they ever try to coerce or intimidate you into doing something that violates your conscience, which would then make it a religious issue. Some people appear to confuse violating their conscience with associating with people they find distasteful. Government says: have sex with that person!You can say No! if that would violate your conscience! What if they tell me to have sex with someone and it would not violate my conscience? Does the government telling me to do it serve as a loophole to the Law of Chastity. Government says: approve of that relationship, even when you believe it is not a righteous relationship!You can say No! if that would violate your conscience! I'll worry about this when the government breaks out its mind-control lasers and can force me to approve of things. Government says: bake a cake for those 2 people who want to use it to celebrate a wedding which you believe is an unrighteous relationship!You can say No! if it would violate your conscience! So you run this theoretical bakery and are going to discriminate against unrighteous relationships? Would you refuse to bake an anniversary cake for an unmarried heterosexual couple who asked even though it is clear they are having sex? How about a normal heterosexual wedding where one person is mean? Would you vet the couple in advance to determine how righteous the relationship is? I guess you would need to check for cheating, possible abuse, and whether one was just marrying the other for their money. You will probably need to hire a full-time private investigator or two to keep up. The commandment against fornication in the Law of Moses is pretty close to the one about sodomy so they appear to be equally condemned. Why would you discriminate on one and not the other? Or can we just admit that this is very selective discrimination but that we will only discriminate based on one commandment and not the others because we find that one ickier? Even if it results in you being thrown into a prison, or scoffed at by wicked men, or both, hold on to your religous principles, man!... unless your religious principles are corrupt and in need of correction, then just change them for heavens sake, man! When God issues an explicit command to ban pastries or photographers or whatever from working for practicing homosexuals I will rush to join you out on the barricades and die alongside you in your glorious crusade. Does that satisfy you? Until then I am going to honor and sustain our anti-discrimination laws by doing what I would have done anyways even if there wasn't such a law. There is no commandment against working for sinners. If there were and it was obeyed unemployment would be universal. If I worked at a bakery and a gay couple came in wanting a cake and I could do it I would make the cake. The only reason I could see for refusing is if the cake itself was obscene or if the couple invited me for a threesome after the wedding in which case I would refuse and job and I would not even be tempted to take it.........unless they were really hot. Edited February 3, 2015 by The Nehor
Ahab Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I accidentally hit the rep point button instead of the quote button. You don't need a cake to get married last I checked.A wedding cake is a symbol of celebration for a wedding, so to make one for a gay wedding is to make something to celebrate a gay wedding. A baker who doesn't want to celebrate a gay wedding shouldn't be compelled to make oneAnd the explanation really should not be necessary, since all you need to understand is that nobody should be compelled to do something they don't feel right about. Non-discrimination is not explicit support for anything or anyone. It is blind like the rain and sun that God sends forth on the righteous and the wicked.My issue has more to do with using compulsory means to achieve an end goal. FYI, that isn't righteous, ever.
pogi Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) My issue has more to do with using compulsory means to achieve an end goal. FYI, that isn't righteous, ever. Without compulsory means, there would be no rule of law. Taxes would not be paid, criminals would not be punished, slavery would still abound, etc. etc. Complete anarchy would result. Edited February 3, 2015 by pogi 1
Daniel2 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Breaking news from just today regarding the bakery that refused service. The cost of discrimination is high:So those who disagree with this ruling, here's the order, so you know what it is you're arguing against:http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/BOLI-sweetcakes.pdf
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 So those who disagree with this ruling, here's the order, so you know what it is you're arguing against: http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/BOLI-sweetcakes.pdfIs there a link where one could contribute to a legal defense fund for the bakery?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) I posted an entire article--neither a bumpersticker nor a soundbite--which you reduced to a mere title, posted a mocking single sentance rebuttal less than 7 minutes later, and ignored the rest. You may deny it, but that, my friend, is a perfect example of a non-substantive, drive-by response. And ironically, in so doing, you reduced your response to this issue (and the discussion of the article I posted) to the very bumpersticker/soundbite that you claim to decry. Disappointing. Here's just one discussion point raised on the article: Think about someone whose religious beliefs state that women must not work outside the home. Now imagine that person having authority over hiring decisions at his job. Do his religious beliefs allow him to discriminate against a female candidate for a position? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of both religion and sex. I'd like to see a conservative argue that religious freedom gives the man in this scenario the right to reject, out of hand, all women candidates seeking employment.Though my response was short it was not without substance. Oppression is a two-way street. There are individual rights to be balanced against each other. Elders Oaks and Christofferson acknowledged that doing so can be hard work, but being just and fair is often not easy. That is what I was endeavoring to convey in my response, which you so airily dismissed as mockery because I expressed it in a single sentence rather than going on and on for paragraphs. Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Storm Rider Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Whatever happened to common sense? If I am not treated well in a store I just don't go back. I don't sit around whining that I am not being serviced well, I just leave and find a store that actually serves me well. Why is there this driving need to sue everyone that does not treat a person well? 1
Ahab Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Without compulsory means, there would be no rule of law. Taxes would not be paid, criminals would not be punished, slavery would still abound, etc. etc.Complete anarchy would result.How do you feel about unrighteous dominion?What do you see happening to a society when its government demands that its citizens do things that violate their conscience? Are you familiar with the Declaration of Independence? Maybe it's time for another revolution.
Tacenda Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 How do you feel about unrighteous dominion?What do you see happening to a society when its government demands that its citizens do things that violate their conscience? Are you familiar with the Declaration of Independence? Maybe it's time for another revolution.Why does a dollar bill have "In God We Trust" on it? And people not trust God to work it out!?
california boy Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 It is unbelievable so many "faithful" Mormons are working so hard to fight against something that Christ Himself spent a lifetime teaching against. Why bother to say you are a follower of Christ when you defend so strongly and want to encourage those who would trash His name because of their own prejudice. And yes that is exactly what this is about. Since the only sins these bakers/photographers etc. are standing against are gay sins. I suppose you will now have to campaigned for the restaurant owner to not allow blacks at his counter because the Bible clearly teaches that races should be kept separate. You will now have to campaigned for the employer who won't hire women because they should no be working, but in the home where they belong. That is where this campaign leads to. Discrimination against blacks, Jews, women, Mormons, gays Muslins and every other minority group. You have every right to fight against the laws of this country. You have every right to voice your opposition to the teachings of Christ in the public square. So rally the troops. Become known as the church that wants to reinstitute legal discrimination in this country. But just remember, this particular law that you want to get rid of is against everything Christ taught about how we should treat others. And if you succeed, what further damage will you cause to the church that already has a reputation for discrimination? Be careful what you wish for.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Whatever happened to common sense? If I am not treated well in a store I just don't go back. I don't sit around whining that I am not being serviced well, I just leave and find a store that actually serves me well. Why is there this driving need to sue everyone that does not treat a person well?Because in a community where everyone wants to discriminate against you there will not be a place to go where you can get good service. If you had told a black man that when he was trying to get a hotel room 60 years ago he would have looked at you like you were crazy and rightfully so.
pogi Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) How do you feel about unrighteous dominion?What do you see happening to a society when its government demands that its citizens do things that violate their conscience?Are you familiar with the Declaration of Independence?Maybe it's time for another revolution. Ahab, my problem is that you and others on here use absolutes like "always" and "never" in support of your ideology. That to me is radical extremism. The lesson that the church is teaching us is "balance" through "give and take". We NEED compulsory means to prevent anarchy and lawlessness, we NEED non-discrimination laws to prevent evil masked as "conscience". We are a better society because of these laws. To remove such would be a devolution. You say you want a revolution, well you know, we all want to change the world Edited February 3, 2015 by pogi
Storm Rider Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 It is unbelievable so many "faithful" Mormons are working so hard to fight against something that Christ Himself spent a lifetime teaching against. Why bother to say you are a follower of Christ when you defend so strongly and want to encourage those who would trash His name because of their own prejudice. And yes that is exactly what this is about. Since the only sins these bakers/photographers etc. are standing against are gay sins. I suppose you will now have to campaigned for the restaurant owner to not allow blacks at his counter because the Bible clearly teaches that races should be kept separate. You will now have to campaigned for the employer who won't hire women because they should no be working, but in the home where they belong. That is where this campaign leads to. Discrimination against blacks, Jews, women, Mormons, gays Muslins and every other minority group. You have every right to fight against the laws of this country. You have every right to voice your opposition to the teachings of Christ in the public square. So rally the troops. Become known as the church that wants to reinstitute legal discrimination in this country. But just remember, this particular law that you want to get rid of is against everything Christ taught about how we should treat others. And if you succeed, what further damage will you cause to the church that already has a reputation for discrimination? Be careful what you wish for. You seem very convinced that only your have the moral high ground...the problem is that I am not convinced that is the case and could actually be the exact opposite. I think the leaders of the Church are trying to recognize that some areas there should be no discrimination and there are others where one's religious values should be respected. This is not a black and white issue regardless of how many times people try to paint it as such. The reality is that if one business, apartment owner, baker, photographer, take your pick of services rejects a person for whatever reason, there are a multitude of alternative sources for the exact same services. When did a private enterprise lose the right to shut it doors or reject business? They do it every day for a host of reasons. If someone does not want my business I am not interested in frequenting their store; I march across the street and happily spend my money with a competing business.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 How do you feel about unrighteous dominion?What do you see happening to a society when its government demands that its citizens do things that violate their conscience? Are you familiar with the Declaration of Independence? Maybe it's time for another revolution.I am trying to think of a sillier reason for a revolution and I can match not wanting to bake cakes for people but I am not sure if I can beat it.
Storm Rider Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Because in a community where everyone wants to discriminate against you there will not be a place to go where you can get good service. If you had told a black man that when he was trying to get a hotel room 60 years ago he would have looked at you like you were crazy and rightfully so. Which community are you talking about in today's world and what service is unanimously denied which minority?
Storm Rider Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I am trying to think of a sillier reason for a revolution and I can match not wanting to bake cakes for people but I am not sure if I can beat it. Your logic is good here; can you think of sillier reason to bring a law suit - say for $150,000 because a baker said I don't want to bake you a cake?
pogi Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Which community are you talking about in today's world and what service is unanimously denied which minority? That is a short-sighted question. Look to the past to find the possibilities of the future. Remove the protections which prevent the past from re-lapsing, and history will repeat itself.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Which community are you talking about in today's world and what service is unanimously denied which minority?None, and the laws we have are designed to keep it that way.This does mean that a pure Mormon community following the dictates of their conscience as defined by many on this board would not serve food to or provide services for a gay couple. I guess they could sleep in a ditch or a park after the hotels reject them but most Mormon areas seem to have strong anti-vagrancy laws.In any case it does justify gays wanting to vilify us and keep us from growing. If we become an overwhelming majority they become persona non grata in the community. If Protestants were to do the same thing to Mormons I would want to make sure to avoid Protestant dominated communities and would speak up about this bigotry in hopes of dissuading people from joining.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Your logic is good here; can you think of sillier reason to bring a law suit - say for $150,000 because a baker said I don't want to bake you a cake?Yes, many. It would seem silly for me to bring a lawsuit against a hotel for refusing to allow a Mormon to stay until later when Mormons are barred from virtually every hotel. Then I would be seen as prescient.
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I accidentally hit the rep point button instead of the quote button. You don't need a cake to get married last I checked. Non-discrimination is not explicit support for anything or anyone. It is blind like the rain and sun that God sends forth on the righteous and the wicked. My wife and I had bacon and eggs. Agreed. 1
Tacenda Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) I wonder without even reading thoroughly about the case, that the lawyers set this amount. But even if the plaintiffs brought that amount about, I think they're thinking of how important an individual's civil rights matter. Maybe they are comparing it to someone not able to drink out of the same fountain, or use the same restroom. I wonder if we need to study it further because our first response is shock to this "silly" lawsuit, just like the lady who sued over the hot coffee in the fairly recent news. When the information unfolded we see a completely different story. Personally I would find another cake baker and move on, but it would affect me, maybe even lead me to depression or becoming self conscience. Possibly harming in the domino affect. Edited February 3, 2015 by Tacenda
Storm Rider Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 None, and the laws we have are designed to keep it that way.This does mean that a pure Mormon community following the dictates of their conscience as defined by many on this board would not serve food to or provide services for a gay couple. I guess they could sleep in a ditch or a park after the hotels reject them but most Mormon areas seem to have strong anti-vagrancy laws.In any case it does justify gays wanting to vilify us and keep us from growing. If we become an overwhelming majority they become persona non grata in the community. If Protestants were to do the same thing to Mormons I would want to make sure to avoid Protestant dominated communities and would speak up about this bigotry in hopes of dissuading people from joining. Most of what you saying is pretty shallow and extreme and without any basis in reality. You don't have an example of support your claims; there is no community anywhere in the USA that does anything close to what your complaining about, and yet you want me and everyone else to believe that it is fair to be castigated? Got it. I grew up in a Protestant town with the people you are talking about. Guess what? Still found a job in school, still could buy a cake when I wanted one, and my family was able to buy a house and a car when we wanted. Why? Because some people were more interested in what we offered while others were not. The same "bigotry" exists today in the same community and Mormons have continued to thrive and membership grow. Let's keep our feet on solid ground and talk about real problems instead of creating the invisible ghost to scare people to accept your concerns that are not supported by facts. Where are the hoards of gay people on the streets of SLC or Provo because no one rents them a place to live? Where the famished gay people without cake to eat? Bring them forward and let's talk to them about this unanimous rejection by the terrible Mormons.
Recommended Posts