Oregon Bakery Found Culpable For Anti-Gay Discrimination, Could Face $150,000 Fine

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, Feb 3, 2015.

  1. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #1
    The verdict is in, the Kleins have been found guilty as charged. The judge wrote a very detailed and well thought out verdict which will no doubt be used in other cases like this that are popping up across the country. This was a very important case.

    Discuss.
     
  2. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    your a bit slow on this one. but what I got a kick out of is a gay group made a collection to help them pay the fines. not sure if they accepted the money or not though.
     
  3. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #3
    How? This verdict was just announced yesterday and I haven't seen a thread on it.
     
  4. dime21, Feb 3, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2015

    dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #4
    If you don't goose step to our mantra, we'll hurt you! This must be that famed liberal tolerance everyone's talking about. :rolleyes:
     
  5. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/21/3184691/oregon-bakery-guilty-discriminating-sex-couple/ though you made me look it up was thinking it may have been the other case. maybe the other case is who the gay group gave the money too.

    ----------

    If you treat people not like you wrongly just like the bible says you deserve punishment.
    But I guess it is ok to discriminate as long as your faith that you invented for yourself says so.
     
  6. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #6
    Where are all of those writers who insist that conservatives "can't even convincingly demonstrate that anyone is hurt in any way by a gay wedding?" Still denying reality no doubt.
     
  7. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #7

    Technically speaking, a wedding is a ceremony and vastly different then marriage itself. So marriage is still not hurting anyone. Add the fact that this was about a case of discrimination regarding the sale of a cake, not a wedding or a marriage.
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8

    Seems to me they got hurt by not obeying the law. How does gay marriage affect you?
     
  9. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #9
    It is stuff like this that has made me go from voting against prop 8 and supporting gay marriage to being against it now.

    People should be able to live however they want, and that includes not being forced to participate in a gay wedding if they don't want to.
     
  10. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #10
    Here's a link to the law, although you would have to look up other references to completely interpret it. I can't really support potentially bankrupting a small business over something like that. I still think they're misguided, but this isn't likely to help anyone.
     
  11. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #11
    If THIS is what puts you against it, then you were never really for it.

    ----------

    It's not about helping anyone. It's about enforcing a non-discrimination ordinance. Would you feel the same if a business was fined 150k for refusing to serve a black customer? As far as I'm concerned, it's the same thing.
     
  12. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #12
    Again this isn't about a gay wedding or participating in it, it's about breaking discrimination law revolving around a gay couple and a sale of a cake. If you're going to be against it, might as well understand what you're fighting against then.
     
  13. iBlazed, Feb 3, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2015

    iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #13
    So gay people shouldn't marry because some people feel that making them a cake violates their religion? Lolz to that.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    No comment.
     
  15. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #15
    Interesting thing is that this ordinance is from 2007, long before gay marriage was legal in Oregon. If this couple was having a "commitment ceremony" or something back then, and they were refused service, this same thing would have happened even though gay marriage wasn't legal yet. It's not about marriage, it's about discriminating against people for their sexual orientation.
     
  16. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #16

    Some people in this thread are having a hard time understanding the difference.
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    Great argument with you claiming that I was never really for it.

    ----------

    It's about breaking a law that requires you to participate in something that is against your conscience. If the baker refused to sell them a birthday cake, then you might have a point, but they were trying to force the baker to participate in the wedding by making the cake. Why not just allow everyone to live how they want, it's not like by allowing the baker to follow his beliefs there would have been no other options for them to get the cake.
     
  18. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #18

    Baking a cake does not equate participating in a wedding, gay or otherwise. The courts ruled against them in regards to a discrimination law. You can be against the ruling, that's fine it's your opinion but don't confuse the line of baking a cake with that of being part of a wedding you don't support. They are vastly two different things.
     
  19. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #19
    The ruling effectively said that they could be required to be a part of the wedding. And I'm sure given how the law was written that was a correct interpretation, which is why I've come to be against these kinds of laws.
     
  20. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    I've always been kind of split about the subject myself.

    On one hand, while you can deny someone service based upon what they are (as in they're obnoxious, rude, immature), you can't deny service based upon who they are. Whether you're straight, gay, black, white, athiest, christian, jewish, muslim, whatever, if you walk into a place of business, you should expect to be served, rather than having to face a heavy dose of bigotry. Laws such as this have to be adhered to in order to enforce a standard everyone has to abide by.

    On the other hand, sometimes it's better to try to convince someone to open their minds, than it is to immediately beat them with the legal stick of justice. $150,000 is a steep price to pay considering the damage done, and it won't do a damn thing to endear Cake Lady to the gay community.

    While I agree with the law, it doesn't always have to be called upon in every instance of discrimination. It should be used as a last resort, not the first.
     
  21. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #21

    Yet again, making a cake does not equate being part of a wedding. Making a candle does equate being part of a birthday party because someone stuck your candle on the cake. Creating a tombstone does not equate you took part in a funeral. Creating and selling a dildo does not equate you taking part in a sex act.

    This case has nothing to do with gay marriage or even a wedding. The job of the baker was to make a cake and that's where it ended for him. How the cake was used was entirely up to the customer, period. He had zero participation in the wedding. Cakes aren't even part of a wedding, they are used in the reception which happens after the wedding.

    As for the law itself, it was posted a few posts up but here it is again. Im more then willing to bet that the courts have a greater understanding then you in this manner.
    http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403
     
  22. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    Here, you're wrong. Like everyone else has said, they're only there to bake the cake and hand it off, not directly join in on the wedding.
     
  23. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #23
    Your issue is with anti-discrimination laws, not with gay marriage. If this baker would have refused to bake a cake for 2 black people getting married, and found guilty of discrimination, would you be against black marriages?
     
  24. kds1 Suspended

    kds1

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    New York, New York
    #24
    Nothing is going to endear Cake Lady to the gay community. Slap'em with the fine and let others know this won't be tolerated.
     
  25. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #25

    So if you go into a business and they say get out cause you are fat or ugly or white or male or whatever they want to come up with to nor serve you is just fine huh? Never caused problems when it was black people having to suffer with it. With freedom comes responsibility. The Bible says follow the lands laws so they broke Christian law too.
     

Share This Page