Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[SmileyMcGee]

Smiley,

The couple arrainged for a "tasting" with sweet cakes, before they could very far into the discussion with a sweetcakes rep; the rep asked "name of groom". The couple informed him it was two females. He then informed sweetcakes would not peovide a cake.

So they were refused a service that the bakery already offered? Do you have a link to a good summary of the case. If that's what happened I would have sued, too. Edited July 5, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Google sweet cakes bakery, Oregon.

Thanks, I've been trying to find a good piece but just keep finding quotes from the owners of the bakery decrying the infringement of their religious freedoms...whatever that means.

[Russell C McGregor]

Thanks, I've been trying to find a good piece but just keep finding quotes from the owners of the bakery decrying the infringement of their religious freedoms...whatever that means.

So the concept of religious freedom is something you have difficulty understanding?

That explains a great deal.

[TheSkepticChristian]

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.

 

politics 

Edited July 5, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[SmileyMcGee]

So the concept of religious freedom is something you have difficulty understanding?

That explains a great deal.

good to hear. Edited July 5, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Danzo]

Is this for both the award of damages and the gag order?

Thanks for the info.

I believe it is for damages. Where they come up with those 135,000. I don't know. Neither do the attorneys, but in Oregon, agencies can pretty much do as they want to. There is not much due process here in Oregon. Believe it or not, the alj's decision was only a suggestion. The commissioner of BOLI can has the final say, not the alj. Only now, after the agency has made its final decision can they speak to a real judge that is actually independent of the agency. This can be pretty expensive, in attorney's fees, so I'm not sure they have the financial ability to continue to fight. I'll ask the attorney when I see him next what plans, if any there are for appeal.

I don't deal with BOLI much on a professional level, but I work with a couple of other agencies in Oregon. I often have to explain to clients that in oregon, because due process is so weak, the agency knows they do not have to follow the law at all. Even when they are doing something blatantly illegal, the cost of fighting is often more than the cost of just paying up. In Oregon, Justice is often available only for the rich.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Danzo

[california boy]

Yes. No matter how many ridges my mind has, if there was such evidence, it would make a difference.

Mind you, if there was such evidence, you wouldn't need to strive so hard to make the actual evidence mean something it clearly does not.

It's a joke, right? Who takes something like that seriously?

Thus proving that they don't "refuse to serve SINNAHS!"

Jesse Christ? Is he related to Jesse James?

So let me see if I got their position right. They are going to go before a judge and tell the judge that

they are willing to bake a cake for someone who has broken their marriage vows and are celebrating their divorce because their God is not offended by that

They are willing to bake a cake to celebrate a couple that is forenicating and bringing children into this world without being married and their God is not offended. That doesn't violate any of their religious beliefs.

And they are willing to bake a cake celebrating a pagan ritual because their God has no problem with worshiping pagan gods. That doesn't violate their deeply held religious beliefs

BUT if a gay couple wants to marry that is so offensive to their God that they are willing to break the law rather then offend their God and violate their religious beliefs.

Good to know that the only thing that offends God is gay marriage. No wonder all of these Christians are predicting the end of the world now that gay marriage is legal. Evidently God was quite pleased with how things were on the world until a week ago.

Good luck with that. Pass the pop corn.

And you have no problem with the other bakery making such a mockery of marriage that they are willing to bake a cake to celebrate two dogs getting married. Just a joke, right. Lol.

You are a piece of work.

Edited July 5, 2015 by california boy

[Gray]

The issue is not taking a cake off the shelf or buying a plain cake.  it is to make a specific, special kind of cake.  I think every business owner has the right to not work; to refuse any additional work from any client regardless of the request.  If it causes an owner to do something special, different, or unique for a specific client that is not "off the shelf".  No where is a business owner required to work when they do not want to.  

 

If I am wrong on this point, CFR.  What law requires me to work when I choose not to do so as an owner of any business?

 

Really? What's the recipe for a gay wedding cake vs a straight wedding cake?

[filovirus]

So let me see if I got their position right. They are going to go before a judge and tell the judge that

they are willing to bake a cake for someone who has broken their marriage vows and are celebrating their divorce because their God is not offended by that

I bet they would provide a cake for the same sex couple if they were to get a divorce. (toungue in cheek)

[thesometimesaint]

The penalty of rebellion to an unjust judicial system?  Hmm, what do we call that?  Seems like on the 4th of July we call it revolution for a just cause and for liberty.  What would you call it?

 

If you win then you get to form your own country. If you lose then you hang. As Ben Franklin famously said. We either hang together or we will hang separately.

Edited July 5, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Rain]

WW Asks - I’m shopping around for a nice baby shower cake for my friend. It’s her second baby with her boyfriend so I’m not looking for anything too big or fancy—probably enough to serve 15 to 20 people.

They are willing to bake a cake to celebrate a couple that is forenicating and bringing children into this world without being married and their God is not offended. That doesn't violate any of their religious beliefs.

Please be careful with this. A baby shower is NOT celebrating someone fornicating. It is to celebrate a baby and help provide for a baby.

If a woman was raped, got pregnant and adopted out the baby a baby shower for the adoptive parents would not be a celebration of the rape, even if the parents knew.

[thesometimesaint]

Please be careful with this. A baby shower is NOT celebrating someone fornicating. It is to celebrate a baby and help provide for a baby.

If a woman was raped, got pregnant and adopted out the baby a baby shower for the adoptive parents would not be a celebration of the rape, even if the parents knew.

 

So is SSM Rape?

[Calm]

Where in the world are you getting that connection from? That has no relation to what she said.

Edited July 5, 2015 by calmoriah

[Jeanne]

So here we go,,,some people are going to have to decide whether to be employed or stick to a religious code.  A lot of people are going to have t resign from their jobs or get fired.  This, people, is why there should be a separation of church and state.  None of us can have it both ways..so guess what?  That is called equality. No one would have been fined back in the day.  They should have just been doing their job.

[TheSkepticChristian]

- A Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake for a youth baptism temple trip (objecting to church's history of baptizing for the dead holocaust victims).

- An atheist baker refusing to bake a cross cake for an evangelical gathering, feeling their beliefs oppress others.

- A Muslim baker refusing to bake a "welcome home troops" cake.

- A gay baker refusing to bake cakes for a traditional marriage rally.

 

LOL Many just want a United States of discrimination 

[tonie]

Thank you for proving that it was nothing to do with "refusing to serve sinners."

I always knew it wasn't, and this establishes beyond doubt that I was right.

So, thank you.

What goal post are you aiming for?

The bakers actions and words speak for the baker. The record(s) indicate why the baker refused to MAKE A CAKE.

The baker was not asked to participate or be involved, those concerned with facts and accuracy understand this.

Edited July 5, 2015 by tonie

[SmileyMcGee]

What goal post are you aiming for?

The bakers actions and words speak for the baker. The record(s) indicate why the baker refused to MAKE A CAKE.

The baker was not asked to participate or be involved, those concerns with facts and accuracy inderstand this.

You'll probably find it more beneficial to your mind to bash your head into a wall than to try to engage Russell in a reasonable, civil discussion.

[SmileyMcGee]

Here is a link to the proposed order: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweetcakes%20signed%20PO.pdf

[Anijen]

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

I wish he had never been banned. I loved Pahoran's posts!!! His opinions although not accepted by all were succinct and spot on (IMO)

 

Starts chanting "Bring back Pahoran" repeat

[tonie]

I wish he had never been banned. I loved Pahoran's posts!!! His opinions although not accepted by all were succinct and spot on (IMO)

Starts chanting "Bring back Pahoran" repeat

he never left, in fact russell quoted himself as pahoran, and as russell ridiculed the board.

Given that pahoran never left, save your breathe. the person pressing the keys is the whether pahoran or russell mcgregor; the vituperation is the same as well.

Edited July 5, 2015 by tonie

[Russell C McGregor]

LOL Many just want a United States of discrimination

Or maybe people want a United States of Freedom of Association.

In a genuinely free society (as opposed to a controlled society wherein people are taught to routinely chant slogans about how free they are) buyers and sellers would both be equally free to decide with whom they want to do business, and would be accountable to nobody for making such choices. IOW, just as buyers are free to walk past five banks or drive past seven supermarkets on the way to the one they prefer, so should the banker or the shopkeeper be free to refuse service just because they feel like it.

I'm not saying that that would necessarily be a wise thing for them to do; nor am I saying that I would necessarily agree with or approve of their choices. But I believe that they ought to be free to make those choices.

To those who think that such an approach is "anarchy" or a recipe for wholesale discrimination: Nuh-uh. What I've described is what happens where I live. No anarchy here.

However, given that businesses in America are treated as "public accommodations" (a description that intuitively only applies to things like electricity companies or municipal transport) and are therefore constrained in their right to choose with whom they wish to associate, it seems reasonable to require them to serve everyone equally; providing that they remain free to conscientiously object to participating in/being involved with/actively supporting an event or practice with which they have a principled disagreement.

I actually think most people would agree with me.  So much so, that it makes it worthwhile for some people -- namely, those who wish to attack such freedoms -- to misrepresent such conscientious objection as "refusing to serve SINNAHS!" or "discrimination against gays."

But it is unquestionably apparent that the misrepresentation is entirely intentional.

 

[rodheadlee]

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.

I see your Matthew 25 and raise you a Matthew 5:39: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not ^aevil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right ^bcheek, ^cturn to him the other also.

[Russell C McGregor]

So let me see if I got their position right. They are going to go before a judge and tell the judge that

What judge? What kind of people are so self-important, self-centred, precious and "entitled" as to demand that a judge force someone to serve them, if that person doesn't want to?

Oh, never mind.

 

they are willing to bake a cake for someone who has broken their marriage vows and are celebrating their divorce because their God is not offended by that

Broken their marriage vows? Who are they to judge that? How do you know the lady's husband didn't dump her for a younger model?

Is a post-divorce consolation party morally equivalent to entering into a legal contract to engage in future sinful behaviours? I doubt it.

 

They are willing to bake a cake to celebrate a couple that is forenicating and bringing children into this world without being married and their God is not offended. That doesn't violate any of their religious beliefs.

I thought a baby shower was an occasion to give the mother-to-be gifts for the benefit of the newborn. Are you arguing that normative Christian behaviour is to punish children for the sins of their parents?

Is a baby shower morally equivalent to entering into a legal contract to engage in future sinful behaviours? I doubt it.

 

And they are willing to bake a cake celebrating a pagan ritual because their God has no problem with worshiping pagan gods. That doesn't violate their deeply held religious beliefs

I know the particular targets of your "gay" rage are not Latter-day Saints, but their behaviour seems consistent with our Article of Faith 11.

Are the pagans planning to have an orgy at their solstice celebration?

Is a pagan solstice celebration morally equivalent to entering into a legal contract to engage in future sinful behaviours? I doubt it.

 

BUT if a gay couple wants to marry that is so offensive to their God that they are willing to break the law rather then offend their God and violate their religious beliefs.

Is a same sex "wedding" morally equivalent to entering into a legal contract to engage in future sinful behaviours?

Why yes; it is.

 

Good to know that the only thing that offends God is gay marriage.

"It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!" he squealed.

 

No wonder all of these Christians are predicting the end of the world now that gay marriage is legal. Evidently God was quite pleased with how things were on the world until a week ago.

All of what Christians?

 

Good luck with that. Pass the pop corn.

And you have no problem with the other bakery making such a mockery of marriage that they are willing to bake a cake to celebrate two dogs getting married. Just a joke, right. Lol.

They're having a party for their pets. People can be stupid about their pets, especially people with more money than sense.

But is having a party for two dogs -- which are not morally sentient beings -- morally equivalent to entering into a legal contract to engage in future sinful behaviours? I doubt it.

Domestic dogs, incidentally, don't form pair bonds. They mate opportunistically.

Like some humans I'm aware of. Never ask me which ones.

 

You are a piece of work.

Thank you so much.

I won't say what you are a piece of.

Evidently you expect the plaintiffs (who, after all, are the ones who have to make their case) to flounce into court and demand that the judge adjudicate on the theological consistency of the defendants' religious beliefs.

And not only that, you expect the judge to actually do it.

Amazing.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Rain]

Where in the world are you getting that connection from? That has no relation to what she said.

 

Thank you. I purposely didn't say anything about SSM or imply anything about it.  I've just read enough about children being held accountable for how they were brought into this world and I think it stinks to put that weight on them.  I don't believe that was the intention here so I said, "be careful".

[california boy]

What judge? What kind of people are so self-important, self-centred, precious and "entitled" as to demand that a judge force someone to serve them, if that person doesn't want to

Evidently you expect the plaintiffs (who, after all, are the ones) to flounce into court and demand that the judge adjudicate on the theological consistency of the defendants' religious beliefs.

And not only that, you expect the judge to actually do it.

Amazing.

Well this explains why you are incapable of following the conversation. The plaintives have already won the case.

It is the defendant "sweet Cakes Bakery" that filed an appeal and is asking for judicial review. It is the bakery that is requesting to go before a judge to explain how only gay marriage offends their religious beliefs to bake a cake but divorce having children out of wedlock and pagan worship does not.