Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[Mystery Meat]

They were fined $130,000 for not wanting to provide a wedding cake for a SSM. $130,000. Wow. That is insane. Oregon just effectively put that couple out of business for trying to standup for their beliefs. $130,000....that is crazy. This world is messed up.

[Mystery Meat]

 

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian wrote. In short, the Kleins were ordered to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for gay weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

 

Wow. This guy is a real piece of work.

[Calm]

I understand they are going to appeal. Will be interesting to see if the additional order against publishing etc. stands.

I would like to hear the perception from the government. It is presented as a shutdown on speech, but I find it hard to believe they can do that.

[Storm Rider]

Yes, another example of tolerance for all....except for those who think and speak in any way different from those most tolerant in our society (at least in their own minds), the Liberals who prefer to be called Progressives.  Just warms your heart to see their tolerance in action.  

 

And these same people wonder why there are wars in the world. 

[Calm]

From the Daily Signal...having problems with slowing down, so do a search please as it will take forever to get the link.

"The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate."

I would like to see other examples where this law was invoked.

Edited July 4, 2015 by calmoriah

[Traela]

Marriage had not even been redefined when this took place. This whole lawsuit was never about "freedom to love" or whatever garbage they want to claim, but about silencing dissent.

Plus, really, all that supposed angst over someone telling those ladies "no"? Unless there was actual, prolonged, verbal abuse (and no, "sorry, we won't do that because we believe it's a sin" doesn't count), their "emotional trauma" was way over the top. They both need to grow up, because they are obviously too immature to be marrying anyone.

[Mystery Meat]

From the Daily Signal...having problems with slowing down, so do a search please as it will take forever to get the link.

"The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate."

I would like to see other examples where this law was invoked.

 

This story gets better and better. That Oregon law is pretty stupid as it stands, firstly. Secondly, the lesbian couple are awful. What kind of person goes out of their way to not only force a baker to do something they are morally opposed to, but when they talk about continuing to fight the good fight so to speak they want the government to force them to stop. What a bunch of garbage. These women ought to be ashamed of themselves. What a disgusting display of entitlement and vindictiveness.

[Mystery Meat]

Marriage had not even been redefined when this took place. This whole lawsuit was never about "freedom to love" or whatever garbage they want to claim, but about silencing dissent.

Plus, really, all that supposed angst over someone telling those ladies "no"? Unless there was actual, prolonged, verbal abuse (and no, "sorry, we won't do that because we believe it's a sin" doesn't count), their "emotional trauma" was way over the top. They both need to grow up, because they are obviously too immature to be marrying anyone.

 

I don't think the monetary award was as much about compensating these two "victims" (who, as more details emerge, come across more as victimizers), as it is about punishing people and sending a clear message.

[Rivers]

.

[PeterPear]

It's only Christians. I've never heard of Muslim bakeries being targeted. Nor Jewish. Maybe some here have heard otherwise.

It appears to be targeted at Christians.

[california boy]

Yes, another example of tolerance for all....except for those who think and speak in any way different from those most tolerant in our society (at least in their own minds), the Liberals who prefer to be called Progressives. Just warms your heart to see their tolerance in action.

And these same people wonder why there are wars in the world.

What are you talking about? This isn't about tolerance, this is about discrimination. This is about breaking the law. And from a religious point of view this is about unchristian like behavior and using the name of Christ to justify self righteous actions.

Christ taught both by exams and word to serve others including sinners. It was the gospel of the pharasies that taught a message of "we don't serve sinners". Is there any proof that this "sweet" bakery refused service to someone who was divorced? How about an adulter or someone who abuses children. Or beat their wife? Or is this refusal only about discrimination against gays

No Christian could read Matthew 25 and get that they should not serve sinners. They should be ashamed to bring Christ into their argument to justify discrimination and break the law.

Edited July 4, 2015 by california boy

[Mystery Meat]

What are you talking about? This isn't about tolerance, this is about discrimination. This is about breaking the law. And from a religious point of view this is about unchristian like behavior and using the name of Christ to justify self righteous actions.

Christ taught both by exams and word to serve others including sinners. It was the gospel of the pharasies that taught a message of "we don't serve sinners". Is there any proof that this "sweet" bakery refused service to someone who was divorced? How about an adulter or someone who abuses children. Or beat their wife? Or is this refusal only about discrimination against gays

No Christian could read Matthew 25 and get that they should not serve sinners. They should be ashamed to bring Christ into their argument to justify discrimination and break the law.

 

CB, this not about discrimination against gays. The couple said they would have no problem serving gays. They don't want to be forced to participate in a gay wedding.

 

Having said that, I personally would make the cake. But, that's not the point. People should have the right to make a religious objection without the government demanding $135,000 in reparations and trying to silence their speech.

 

Again this is not about discrimination. They never once said we don't want to serve gays. They didn't feel like making a cake was in line with their religious beliefs. That should be their right.

[Mystery Meat]

What are you talking about? This isn't about tolerance, this is about discrimination. This is about breaking the law. And from a religious point of view this is about unchristian like behavior and using the name of Christ to justify self righteous actions.

Christ taught both by exams and word to serve others including sinners. It was the gospel of the pharasies that taught a message of "we don't serve sinners". Is there any proof that this "sweet" bakery refused service to someone who was divorced? How about an adulter or someone who abuses children. Or beat their wife? Or is this refusal only about discrimination against gays

No Christian could read Matthew 25 and get that they should not serve sinners. They should be ashamed to bring Christ into their argument to justify discrimination and break the law.

 

And this is about tolerance. You bring up Christ a lot in this whole SSA debate. What about turning the other cheek? Or loving your enemy? These women not only took the bakery owners to court over a silly and stupid wedding cake (they had plenty of other options), but they were rewarded with $135K (an obscene amount considering the "crime") and ASKED the state to prohibit the couple from speaking about their objections to making a wedding cake for a same sex couple (and the state was asinine enough to oblige).

 

Oh this is all about tolerance. One of these couples is less tolerant than the other. And they were just awarded $135,000.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[california boy]

This story gets better and better. That Oregon law is pretty stupid as it stands, firstly. Secondly, the lesbian couple are awful. What kind of person goes out of their way to not only force a baker to do something they are morally opposed to, but when they talk about continuing to fight the good fight so to speak they want the government to force them to stop. What a bunch of garbage. These women ought to be ashamed of themselves. What a disgusting display of entitlement and vindictiveness.

So you think discrimination laws are stupid? You think we should go back to the 1950's where "we don't serve your kind was a good thing. Businesses refused service to blacks,Jews and others and hid behind their "religious beliefs to also justify their behavior. They also used that holy bible twisting its teachings to claim that God wanted to keep races separate.

What kind of person would fight this kind of discrimination? Martin Luther King for one and countless others that were willing to give their lives over this kind of behavior.

[Mystery Meat]

So you think discrimination laws are stupid? You think we should go back to the 1950's where "we don't serve your kind was a good thing. Businesses refused service to blacks,Jews and others and hid behind their "religious beliefs to also justify their behavior. They also used that holy bible twisting its teachings to claim that God wanted to keep races separate.

What kind of person would fight this kind of discrimination? Martin Luther King for one and countless others that were willing to give their lives over this kind of behavior.

 

I feel like my head is going to explode....

 

This is not about discrimination. They have no problem serving gays. Where they do have a problem is being forced to participate in a wedding that they think violates a good-faith and long held religious belief.

[california boy]

CB, this not about discrimination against gays. The couple said they would have no problem serving gays. They don't want to be forced to participate in a gay wedding.

Having said that, I personally would make the cake. But, that's not the point. People should have the right to make a religious objection without the government demanding $135,000 in reparations and trying to silence their speech.

Again this is not about discrimination. They never once said we don't want to serve gays. They didn't feel like making a cake was in line with their religious beliefs. That should be their right.

It is only about discrimination. That is the law they broke. That is what the courts based their verdict on. they bake cakes. they refused. Businesses don't really get to controls what their products are used for.

[Russell C McGregor]

What are you talking about? This isn't about tolerance, this is about discrimination. This is about breaking the law. And from a religious point of view this is about unchristian like behavior and using the name of Christ to justify self righteous actions.

Christ taught both by exams and word to serve others including sinners. It was the gospel of the pharasies that taught a message of "we don't serve sinners". Is there any proof that this "sweet" bakery refused service to someone who was divorced? How about an adulter or someone who abuses children. Or beat their wife? Or is this refusal only about discrimination against gays

Why do you persist with this manifestly false accusation when it has been discredited so completely?

Is there any evidence that this bakery refused to serve any "gay" customers at any time, except in the context of a same sex "wedding?"

No?

Then it's time to abandon the self-serving bilge about "discrimination against gays" (sob).

No Christian could read Matthew 25 and get that they should not serve sinners.

But since conscientiously objecting to supporting a same sex "wedding" is NOT a refusal to "serve sinners," as you perfectly well know, your argument is moot.

[california boy]

I feel like my head is going to explode....

This is not about discrimination. They have no problem serving gays. Where they do have a problem is being forced to participate in a wedding that they think violates a good-faith and long held religious belief.

Well then let them appeal their case. Let them stand in a court of law and stand before a judge and say we refused to provide the services we offer to every one of our other customers but this couple is gay and we didn't like the way they intended to use our product. Good luck with that.

Sorry about your head. You might try meditation and scripture study

[Russell C McGregor]

I feel like my head is going to explode....

 

This is not about discrimination. They have no problem serving gays. Where they do have a problem is being forced to participate in a wedding that they think violates a good-faith and long held religious belief.

Your head doesn't need to explode. Just accept that the facts don't serve your opponent, so he "gaily" invents his own facts.

[california boy]

What a surprise. Another snarky drive by personal attack without any substance. It is all we expect from you

Nice to see the Pahoran that for banned for doing this very thing is back

Edited July 4, 2015 by california boy

[Danzo]

It is only about discrimination. That is the law they broke. That is what the courts based their verdict on. they bake cakes. they refused. Businesses don't really get to controls what their products are used for.

Correction a court of law has not ruled on this case. This is an agency decision. The judge in this case was just an admistrative law judge. I know some of the attorneys that are working this case. It hasn't gotten out of the agency yet to a real court of law.

[tonie]

I feel like my head is going to explode....

 

This is not about discrimination. They have no problem serving gays. Where they do have a problem is being forced to participate in a wedding that they think violates a good-faith and long held religious belief.

Where did you learn your "new speak".

How is baking "participation in a same sex wedding"? All the baking will be done in the bakery. The couple will pick ip the cake. The baker will not attend any part of the ceremony or reception. But somehow in your new speak, mixing eggs,water, flower, and cooking it at 425 for 30 minutes is "participation in a same sex wedding"; goodness me.

We might as well claim that the Church is promoting homosexuality by donating money to a pro-gay group.

[rodheadlee]

There is no justice in America, freedom goes to the highest bidder. There are no impartial judges. A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge. The typical ADA does not care one whit about guilt or innocence, he or she just cares about winning. These are my family's experiences with the court system. You experience may vary. If you get arrested for a felony plan on it costing everything you have to defend yourself and if it's not enough you will lose.

[Bobbieaware]

This is only the beginning. If the next President of the United States is disposed to place more "progressive" judges on the Supreme Court -- If that opportunity presents itself -- there will be more and more legally authorized forms of coercion to force the people, at the threat of the destruction of their livelihoods and freedom, to comply with politically correct orthodoxy. Welcome to the dawn of Soviet America. Only instead of a compulsory socialist state being brought to power by an armed October Revolution, the "total transformation of America" is being brought about through deception, ignorance and the ballot box -- a slower method of takeover than conquering military tyranny, but in the end just as effective and complete. Only faith, courage and the righteousness of all good people and the grace, mercy and intervention of God can stop it now.

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things (the destruction of the Jaredites and Nephite nations by secret combinations) should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up. (Ether 8:23-24)

Edited July 4, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Russell C McGregor]

What a surprise. Another snarky drive by personal attack without any substance. It is all we expect from you

Why do you say this, when you know perfectly well that it is false?

You know perfectly well that I am challenging your constantly reiterated refrain that refusing to be involved in a same sex "wedding" is "refusing to serve sinners" and "discrimination against gays."

If you had evidence that an adulterer had gone in to the bakery and ordered a cake for the purpose of seducing his neighbour's wife, AND the baker knew it, AND the baker went ahead and provided the cake anyway, you'd have the beginnings of a parallel case.

But you don't.

And after all, who would announce that, if that was what they were doing?

You have no valid basis to accuse them of singling out "gays." I realise that having no valid basis for an accusation isn't likely to slow you down, but that's just the way it is.

Likewise, you have not one example of anyone trying to blanket ban "gays" as customers; a fact that reliably draws forth snarls, but nothing resembling a substantive rebuttal. Every single instance that you have claimed showed Christians practicing "discrimination against gays" was actually an attempt to conscientiously object to being involved in a same sex "wedding."

Nice to see the Pahoran that for banned for doing this very thing is back

Ah. A cheap shot.

How entirely unsurprising.