Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[Calm]

 

I don't know, all I know is that non-christian and non-muslim countries have a lower crime rate. 

 

Are you comparing those with similar economies and historical development? It may have nothing to do with relgious position. The nonChristian states may have been much less violent if in addition to their history and current economy they were a higher Christian percentage and the same for the Christian...if their economy and history was one that promoted less violence, their Christianity may be preventing them from being much more violent.

One cannot draw comparisons with just the variable of religious faith.

[Calm]

It is easy to sit behind a keyboard and "I would do this or that".

How often have you been explicitly discriminated against due to your religious beliefs. For instance when was the last 5 times you were denied services due directly to your religipus beliefs?

I've been denied service because I was an American, does that count for experiencing something similar? I never made a choice of where I was born. Edited July 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So a customer goes into a bakery (gay owned) and says I want a cake for a anti-gay marriage rally/festival at the local protestant church. Does the gay owner have to make the cake?

Obviously not. This case is not about speech. No one was forcing the Oregon cake owners to write "Gays rule, straights drool" on the wedding cake. They make wedding cakes. They run a public business. The law says you can't refuse to make a cake based someone's sexual orientation. 

 

Did not read Mystery Meat's post carefully. My apologies. My understanding of public accomodation laws says that they would be required to make the cake. To do otherwise would be to discriminate based on religion.

Edited July 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I've been denied service because I was an American, does that count for experiencing something similar? I never made a choice of where I was born.

Yes. Most public accommodation rules say you can't discriminate based on national origin. Here is Oregon's law:

 

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

Edited July 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Mystery Meat]

Obviously not. This case is not about speech. No one was forcing the Oregon cake owners to write "Gays rule, straights drool" on the wedding cake. They make wedding cakes. They run a public business. The law says you can't refuse to make a cake based someone's sexual orientation. 

 

This makes no sense.

[Calm]

This would be a straight wedding cake:

 

I bet you they had a lot of leftovers.....

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This makes no sense.

I noticed I didn't read your post carefully. My apologies. Based on my understanding of the law, they would need to bake the cake. You could not force them to write on it though. I have edited my post for clarity.

Edited July 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

Yes. Most public accommodation rules say you can't discriminate based on national origin. Here is Oregon's law:

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

In another instance a person refused to speak English with me even knowing I did not speak French and knowing this would prevent me from being able to do my job and there was no one else easily available to speak to (I was the only secretary for a national organization and worked from home). He was fine once he learned I was not Canadian.

Both experiences were rather surreal. The first rejection was coupled with the strongest look of hatred I've ever see from a middle aged woman ( this was not in Canada though there are some strong prejudices against Americans held by some Canadians, in a very few cases to the point of despising them).

Edited July 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mystery Meat]

I noticed I didn't read your post carefully. My apologies. Based on my understanding of the law, they would need to bake the cake. You could not force them to write on it though. I have edited my post for clarity.

 

Does it change things if there is a bakery right next door who would be more than willing to provide the service if the first refused?

 

For the record, I know what the law says. I am very familiar with the current judicial culture (hint: it is not so much governed by legal precedent as it is by social fear and shaming). What I want to know from you or others is what SHOULD the law be.

[Calm]

I noticed I didn't read your post carefully. My apologies. Based on my understanding of the law, they would need to bake the cake. You could not force them to write on it though. I have edited my post for clarity.

I assume this would include pictures as well as text?

[Danzo]

I noticed I didn't read your post carefully. My apologies. Based on my understanding of the law, they would need to bake the cake. You could not force them to write on it though. I have edited my post for clarity.

 

Is speech only verbal or written? Could the design of the cake itself, the artistry of it be considered speech?  I believe this is were the dispute lies.

 

We are not talking about Betty Crocker cake mix here.  The owners of the Bakery think that the designing and baking of the wedding cake makes a statement supporting the same sex marriage (which at the time the incident  occurred wasn't even legal in Oregon).  BOLI doesn't think so, which is one of the items in dispute.  

 

Also, it is obvious that Brad is making a political statement to his supporters , which, I believe is the reason for the absurd amount of the fine.  No sane person believes there were 135,000 in damages that actually occurred.

 

Even the Oregonian, which aggressively supports same sex marriages, thinks the fine is absurd.

[ERayR]

We are not talking about Betty Crocker cake mix here. 

 

 

Do you remember what wedding cake tastes like?  It is common bakery white cake mix with shortening and powdered sugar icing.  Give me Betty Crocker any day.

 

Add:  That stuff they call Icing on the main round cakes is more like shoe leather.

Edited July 6, 2015 by ERayR

[Danzo]

Do you remember what wedding cake tastes like?  It is common bakery white cake mix with shortening and powdered sugar icing.  Give me Betty Crocker any day.

 

Add:  That stuff they call Icing on the main round cakes is more like shoe leather.

 

I know what you mean. Wedding cake is usually disgusting.

It's meant to be seen, not eaten.  Hence the opinion that it is a work of art.

[Gray]

So a customer goes into a bakery (gay owned) and says I want a cake for a anti-gay marriage rally/festival at the local protestant church. Does the gay owner have to make the cake?

 

Yes. And I would agree that they should have to. 

Edited July 6, 2015 by Gray

[Mystery Meat]

Yes. And I would agree that they should have to. 

 

Wow. Points for being consistent I guess. Seems like a pretty stupid policy/law if you ask me.

[Gray]

Wow. Points for being consistent I guess. Seems like a pretty stupid policy/law if you ask me.

 

I don't see what's so hard about the concept. If you're in business, you're open to the public. You can say "no shirt no shoes no service," but "no Christians, no blacks, no gays" is crossing the line. 

[Mystery Meat]

I don't see what's so hard about the concept. If you're in business, you're open to the public. You can say "no shirt no shoes no service," but "no Christians, no blacks, no gays" is crossing the line. 

 

Here is where I disagree. I think the state co-opted the term open to the public. In no reasonable way does "open to the public" mean that a private business is open to whoever wants to eat, drink, stay, etc. Utilities, grocery stores, hospitals, and such businesses that are peddling in necessities, sure. Augusta National still does not allow women to be members. I think that is their right. If "Gay Bridal Boutique" doesn't want to serve Mormons that should be their right too. If "Kris's Krazy Krepes" doesn't want to serve African Americans, more power to them. If Wendy's decides to boycott those who are in favor of traditional marriage, great. Open to the public is such a stupid phrase and it is a man-made, arbitrary concept. They are and should be open to those they choose to do business with and closed to those they don't for whatever the reason.

 

I understand the law (arguably unconstitutional) does not allow this currently, but that is my opinion on what the law SHOULD be.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I assume this would include pictures as well as text?

 

Yes. The idea is that if a business makes an item (wedding cakes) in this instance, they cannot discriminate based on protected classes. There is no law that says they have to create new designs (by say putting a picture of a swastika or other offensive symbol).

[Storm Rider]

I appreciate the term "protected classes".  Though it strikes me odd because we have always been told that there are no special rights....unless you are in a protected class and then everyone must never offend.  A strange world indeed when there is so much double speak and bending over backwards in order to sell the citizenry a bill of goods for something never desired.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Is speech only verbal or written? Could the design of the cake itself, the artistry of it be considered speech?  I believe this is were the dispute lies.

 

We are not talking about Betty Crocker cake mix here.  The owners of the Bakery think that the designing and baking of the wedding cake makes a statement supporting the same sex marriage (which at the time the incident  occurred wasn't even legal in Oregon).  BOLI doesn't think so, which is one of the items in dispute.  

 

Also, it is obvious that Brad is making a political statement to his supporters , which, I believe is the reason for the absurd amount of the fine.  No sane person believes there were 135,000 in damages that actually occurred.

 

Even the Oregonian, which aggressively supports same sex marriages, thinks the fine is absurd.

 

A cake could absolutely be considered speech. If I asked them to bake my up a white hooded clan cake, they could certainly refuse. If I asked for a cake in the shape of the Salt Lake Temple they could refuse. If, however, they make Salt Lake Temple cakes all the time, but won't sell one to me because I am Muslim, then we have a problem. 

 

Also for the record, I think the fine amount is obscene. 

Edited July 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I appreciate the term "protected classes".  Though it strikes me odd because we have always been told that there are no special rights....unless you are in a protected class and then everyone must never offend.  A strange world indeed when there is so much double speak and bending over backwards in order to sell the citizenry a bill of goods for something never desired.  

I don't think it means this. Mormons after all are a protected class.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Here is where I disagree. I think the state co-opted the term open to the public. In no reasonable way does "open to the public" mean that a private business is open to whoever wants to eat, drink, stay, etc. Utilities, grocery stores, hospitals, and such businesses that are peddling in necessities, sure. Augusta National still does not allow women to be members. I think that is their right. If "Gay Bridal Boutique" doesn't want to serve Mormons that should be their right too. If "Kris's Krazy Krepes" doesn't want to serve African Americans, more power to them. If Wendy's decides to boycott those who are in favor of traditional marriage, great. Open to the public is such a stupid phrase and it is a man-made, arbitrary concept. They are and should be open to those they choose to do business with and closed to those they don't for whatever the reason.

 

I understand the law (arguably unconstitutional) does not allow this currently, but that is my opinion on what the law SHOULD be.  

Why should there be a distinction for grocery stores? Couldn't a black person just drive / walk / ride the bus to the next town if I don't feel like serving her? What is a necessity? Why should hospitals be forced to serve everyone? Maybe if its a publicly funded hospital, but what right do you have to demand that a private hospital serve you?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Does it change things if there is a bakery right next door who would be more than willing to provide the service if the first refused?

 

For the record, I know what the law says. I am very familiar with the current judicial culture (hint: it is not so much governed by legal precedent as it is by social fear and shaming). What I want to know from you or others is what SHOULD the law be.

 

I think Oregon's law is great as written. In Utah until very recently it was okay under the law to fire someone just because they were gay. It was also just hunky dory to kick someone out of the apartment you own if they are gay. Do you think that this kind of discrimination is okay? 

[Danzo]

Why should there be a distinction for grocery stores? Couldn't a black person just drive / walk / ride the bus to the next town if I don't feel like serving her? What is a necessity? Why should hospitals be forced to serve everyone? Maybe if its a publicly funded hospital, but what right do you have to demand that a private hospital serve you?

 

I don't think the issue is buying groceries.  Sometimes a product or service is a statement of advocacy for or against something.  Examples that come to mind are things like the confederate flag, political speeches,  promotional materials, works of art, religious services.   I think some people think of their products as advocating for something and they don't want to advocate for something they don't believe in.

 

Attorneys are fortunate in that the ABA rules require them to disengage if there exist a conflict of interest.  Its interesting that the lawyers have exempted themselves from the laws they want everyone else to follow. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't think the issue is buying groceries.  Sometimes a product or service is a statement of advocacy for or against something.  Examples that come to mind are things like the confederate flag, political speeches,  promotional materials, works of art, religious services.   I think some people think of their products as advocating for something and they don't want to advocate for something they don't believe in.

 

Attorneys are fortunate in that the ABA rules require them to disengage if there exist a conflict of interest.  Its interesting that the lawyers have exempted themselves from the laws they want everyone else to follow. 

And a wedding cake is a wedding cake. I guess that is where we disagree. It's not like they were commissioned to draw a portrait of the two brides kissing.