The damages are for emotional suffering caused by Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which two years ago refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer.A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organisations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers.“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.
frankly, these anti-gay bakeries need to start getting their heads out of their asses
Break the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 08, 2015, 11:51:38 PMBreak the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 12:08:36 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 08, 2015, 11:51:38 PMBreak the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.I really don't know how one determines cost of intangible damages. If that's what the judge found to be fair, I guess that's what is fair. Burning down a house or totaling a car? Yeah, we can measure that. No idea how emotional distress and such works.But apparently the owners thought fighting for their "right" to discriminate against customers was worth the risk, so I hardly feel bad for their loss.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 12:13:09 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 12:08:36 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 08, 2015, 11:51:38 PMBreak the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.I really don't know how one determines cost of intangible damages. If that's what the judge found to be fair, I guess that's what is fair. Burning down a house or totaling a car? Yeah, we can measure that. No idea how emotional distress and such works.But apparently the owners thought fighting for their "right" to discriminate against customers was worth the risk, so I hardly feel bad for their loss.Except no laws were broken and they have a right to refuse customers. You're terrible human being for wishing them ill.
A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organisations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers.
Quote from: SHAWN BEEN on July 09, 2015, 12:51:20 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 12:13:09 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 12:08:36 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 08, 2015, 11:51:38 PMBreak the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.I really don't know how one determines cost of intangible damages. If that's what the judge found to be fair, I guess that's what is fair. Burning down a house or totaling a car? Yeah, we can measure that. No idea how emotional distress and such works.But apparently the owners thought fighting for their "right" to discriminate against customers was worth the risk, so I hardly feel bad for their loss.Except no laws were broken and they have a right to refuse customers. You're terrible human being for wishing them ill.QuoteA 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organisations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers.RTFA.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 01:03:03 AMQuote from: SHAWN BEEN on July 09, 2015, 12:51:20 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 12:13:09 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 12:08:36 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 08, 2015, 11:51:38 PMBreak the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.I really don't know how one determines cost of intangible damages. If that's what the judge found to be fair, I guess that's what is fair. Burning down a house or totaling a car? Yeah, we can measure that. No idea how emotional distress and such works.But apparently the owners thought fighting for their "right" to discriminate against customers was worth the risk, so I hardly feel bad for their loss.Except no laws were broken and they have a right to refuse customers. You're terrible human being for wishing them ill.QuoteA 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organisations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers.RTFA.Dumb laws that shouldn't be laws don't have to be followed. You probably break a few every day.
That's way too steep of a fine. By a long shot.
Quote from: BC on July 09, 2015, 01:25:28 AMThat's way too steep of a fine. By a long shot.The judge didn't think so.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 01:30:51 AMQuote from: BC on July 09, 2015, 01:25:28 AMThat's way too steep of a fine. By a long shot.The judge didn't think so.A judge also ruled that someone who bowled people over out of sheer apathy for human life should get off on "affluenza"
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 01:30:51 AMQuote from: BC on July 09, 2015, 01:25:28 AMThat's way too steep of a fine. By a long shot.The judge didn't think so.His ruling should be over ruled, or the case should be thrown back into arbitration. It's way to harsh, for something so petty.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 08, 2015, 10:28:47 PMThat's not justice, that's punitive damage.The American system of awarding triple and punitive damages is hands down one of the worst judicial policies that still exist in the That aside, is there any place where you can access these judgements? This makes it very unclear whether this is 135k purely emotional damages, or whether this includes the likes of legal fees and process costs.
That's not justice, that's punitive damage.
local businesses like photographers and florists refused to work with them, and they lost their business two years ago.
Quotelocal businesses like photographers and florists refused to work with them, and they lost their business two years ago. To be fair these are the best way to tell these businesses to stop being fundies or fuck off.
ITT: Max engages in argument from authority despite that he was blubbering over the fact gay marriage was illegal a few months ago.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 09:34:56 AMQuote from: Flee on July 09, 2015, 03:27:56 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 08, 2015, 10:28:47 PMThat's not justice, that's punitive damage.The American system of awarding triple and punitive damages is hands down one of the worst judicial policies that still exist in the That aside, is there any place where you can access these judgements? This makes it very unclear whether this is 135k purely emotional damages, or whether this includes the likes of legal fees and process costs.It's typically unusual for the losing side to have to pay the other's legal fees, and when that's done it's specifically stated. In this case, the judge ruled that their emotional damages for the incident alone (not years of stress due to court, etc) was worth $135k. That's insane.Do you have a link to the actual judgement?
Quote from: Flee on July 09, 2015, 03:27:56 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 08, 2015, 10:28:47 PMThat's not justice, that's punitive damage.The American system of awarding triple and punitive damages is hands down one of the worst judicial policies that still exist in the That aside, is there any place where you can access these judgements? This makes it very unclear whether this is 135k purely emotional damages, or whether this includes the likes of legal fees and process costs.It's typically unusual for the losing side to have to pay the other's legal fees, and when that's done it's specifically stated. In this case, the judge ruled that their emotional damages for the incident alone (not years of stress due to court, etc) was worth $135k. That's insane.
Oregon bakery owners fined $135,000 for refusing to serve gay couple
