Quote from: eggsalad on July 09, 2015, 09:45:30 AM 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.Is it, though? Do these guys really deserve a nationwide mob-mentality against them, the loss of their business and reputation, and crippling debt for refusing to serve them? We're talking 2007, when the majority of the country opposed gay marriage, including big democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yes there was a law on the books about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that isn't what happened. They refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, not because the couple was gay. That may be splitting hairs, but they wouldn't have made the cake regardless of who ordered it; a third-party wedding planner could have placed the order and they'd still refuse, or the couple could have made an order for ostensibly any other event and they wouldn't be refused. That's their issue here. They didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they discriminated against participation in an event which conflicts with their religious belief (one that was mainstream and not at all fundamentalist). Hell, for my wedding I tried to get catering from my favorite local restaurant owned by a gay couple, and they refused to do it because they weren't comfortable doing it in a Christian church. Do they deserve to have their lives ruined because I had to go find another caterer?
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.
local businesses like photographers and florists refused to work with them, and they lost their business two years ago.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 09:59:23 AMQuote from: eggsalad on July 09, 2015, 09:45:30 AM 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.Is it, though? Do these guys really deserve a nationwide mob-mentality against them, the loss of their business and reputation, and crippling debt for refusing to serve them? We're talking 2007, when the majority of the country opposed gay marriage, including big democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yes there was a law on the books about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that isn't what happened. They refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, not because the couple was gay. That may be splitting hairs, but they wouldn't have made the cake regardless of who ordered it; a third-party wedding planner could have placed the order and they'd still refuse, or the couple could have made an order for ostensibly any other event and they wouldn't be refused. That's their issue here. They didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they discriminated against participation in an event which conflicts with their religious belief (one that was mainstream and not at all fundamentalist). Hell, for my wedding I tried to get catering from my favorite local restaurant owned by a gay couple, and they refused to do it because they weren't comfortable doing it in a Christian church. Do they deserve to have their lives ruined because I had to go find another caterer?I didn't express support for government intervention in the matter, nor for vandalism and other crimes. I just support businesses choosing to not extend their services to businesses whom they disagree based on their principles, which in this case, happened when a business refused to extend their services over something irrational or petty.And it is bullshit to frame this issue as religious people being forced to participate in things that are against their religious beliefs, no one is forcing them to be a catering business. When you open an establishment, the public expects that you should extend service to customers as long as they are paying and willing, and not according to some questionable moral beliefs.
Quote from: eggsalad on July 09, 2015, 10:54:03 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 09:59:23 AMQuote from: eggsalad on July 09, 2015, 09:45:30 AM 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.Is it, though? Do these guys really deserve a nationwide mob-mentality against them, the loss of their business and reputation, and crippling debt for refusing to serve them? We're talking 2007, when the majority of the country opposed gay marriage, including big democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yes there was a law on the books about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that isn't what happened. They refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, not because the couple was gay. That may be splitting hairs, but they wouldn't have made the cake regardless of who ordered it; a third-party wedding planner could have placed the order and they'd still refuse, or the couple could have made an order for ostensibly any other event and they wouldn't be refused. That's their issue here. They didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they discriminated against participation in an event which conflicts with their religious belief (one that was mainstream and not at all fundamentalist). Hell, for my wedding I tried to get catering from my favorite local restaurant owned by a gay couple, and they refused to do it because they weren't comfortable doing it in a Christian church. Do they deserve to have their lives ruined because I had to go find another caterer?I didn't express support for government intervention in the matter, nor for vandalism and other crimes. I just support businesses choosing to not extend their services to businesses whom they disagree based on their principles, which in this case, happened when a business refused to extend their services over something irrational or petty.And it is bullshit to frame this issue as religious people being forced to participate in things that are against their religious beliefs, no one is forcing them to be a catering business. When you open an establishment, the public expects that you should extend service to customers as long as they are paying and willing, and not according to some questionable moral beliefs.Let's not ignore the fact that providing baked goods to gays isn't in direct conflict with the Christian faith. It's not like making a Muslim eat pork. Nothing happens to a Christian if you provide your business's service to gays.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 10:56:42 AMQuote from: eggsalad on July 09, 2015, 10:54:03 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 09:59:23 AMQuote from: eggsalad on July 09, 2015, 09:45:30 AM 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.Is it, though? Do these guys really deserve a nationwide mob-mentality against them, the loss of their business and reputation, and crippling debt for refusing to serve them? We're talking 2007, when the majority of the country opposed gay marriage, including big democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yes there was a law on the books about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that isn't what happened. They refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, not because the couple was gay. That may be splitting hairs, but they wouldn't have made the cake regardless of who ordered it; a third-party wedding planner could have placed the order and they'd still refuse, or the couple could have made an order for ostensibly any other event and they wouldn't be refused. That's their issue here. They didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they discriminated against participation in an event which conflicts with their religious belief (one that was mainstream and not at all fundamentalist). Hell, for my wedding I tried to get catering from my favorite local restaurant owned by a gay couple, and they refused to do it because they weren't comfortable doing it in a Christian church. Do they deserve to have their lives ruined because I had to go find another caterer?I didn't express support for government intervention in the matter, nor for vandalism and other crimes. I just support businesses choosing to not extend their services to businesses whom they disagree based on their principles, which in this case, happened when a business refused to extend their services over something irrational or petty.And it is bullshit to frame this issue as religious people being forced to participate in things that are against their religious beliefs, no one is forcing them to be a catering business. When you open an establishment, the public expects that you should extend service to customers as long as they are paying and willing, and not according to some questionable moral beliefs.Let's not ignore the fact that providing baked goods to gays isn't in direct conflict with the Christian faith. It's not like making a Muslim eat pork. Nothing happens to a Christian if you provide your business's service to gays.Well I addressed that in my post. They didn't want to participate in a gay marriage. They didn't refuse to serve the customers because they were gay.
But they weren't being forced to participate in the wedding. They were just baking a cake for the reception - exactly what they did for plenty of customers before.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 11:01:05 AMBut they weren't being forced to participate in the wedding. They were just baking a cake for the reception - exactly what they did for plenty of customers before.I'm confused about how that is not participating in the wedding. It's a wedding cake for the wedding reception. And threat of $135k in damages seems pretty forceful.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 10:48:45 AMQuote from: Flee on July 09, 2015, 10:01:24 AMQuote 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?I'm not sure what you mean. Lower courts don't have to come out with a lengthy explanation of the reasoning for their verdict.I can only assume that there still exists a formal and written ruling, no?
Quote from: Flee on July 09, 2015, 10:01:24 AMQuote 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?I'm not sure what you mean. Lower courts don't have to come out with a lengthy explanation of the reasoning for their verdict.
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.
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.
I don't see how providing a cake for the reception means you're participating in the wedding.
If you're at the point where you care what your customers do with your product that effects you in no way, perhaps you shouldn't be in that line of business.
Is their faith wrong? I think so. Are their values stupid? Sure. But you don't change stupid values by violating their freedom to hold them.
If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest.
I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 11:31:14 AMIf this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest.. . . Who's denying that? That's the entire issue here.QuoteI wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith. Right, because the bakery is going to be aware of who is an adulterer when they ask for a cake. That's a fucking specious analogy.
they should be sure they aren't endorsing any other unions of people who don't follow the word of Christ as strictly as they do.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 11:38:38 AMthey should be sure they aren't endorsing any other unions of people who don't follow the word of Christ as strictly as they do.I'm also fairly certain they'd adhere to the litany of phrases in the Bible about not judging one's fellow neighbour, and prying into somebody's sex life on the basis that they might be an adulterer would probably come off as rather judgemental. But this is such a stupid fucking argument to have; whether or not the bakers are morons, as I think they are, and whether or not they have hypocritical business practices as you think there's still no justification for violating their freedom to hold and abide by these values. I mean, come on man, for fuck's sake it's not a difficult idea to grasp.How the fuck would a bakery even determine if somebody was an adulterer? That's just a non-starter in terms of an argument; how do you even reach the conclusion that such a thing is feasible?
They aren't being Christians, they're being assholes.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on July 09, 2015, 11:22:56 AMIs their faith wrong? I think so. Are their values stupid? Sure. But you don't change stupid values by violating their freedom to hold them. But in the state of Oregon, their anti-discrimination laws prevent you from denying a service to a customer because they are gay, which is what happened here. If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest.I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 11:31:14 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on July 09, 2015, 11:22:56 AMIs their faith wrong? I think so. Are their values stupid? Sure. But you don't change stupid values by violating their freedom to hold them. But in the state of Oregon, their anti-discrimination laws prevent you from denying a service to a customer because they are gay, which is what happened here. If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest.I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith.Well maybe if someone came in requesting a cake for their adultery party, they might refuse that, too.It's not about the couple, it's about the event.
If they weren't gay, they would not have been denied service.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 11:50:58 AMIf they weren't gay, they would not have been denied service.And if they were just hosting a party, they wouldn't have been refused. What exactly is your point?
Well if they were hosting a gay pride party or something, I would assume they would have been refused on the same grounds.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 12:01:53 PMWell if they were hosting a gay pride party or something, I would assume they would have been refused on the same grounds.Duh. The point is that they weren't rejected because they were gay, they were rejected because they were looking for somebody to service a gay ceremony.
and my point remains is that it was THEIR gay ceremony.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 12:07:55 PMand my point remains is that it was THEIR gay ceremony.Yeah, so? That's not even a point; what relevance does it have to anything?
Gays have gay weddings. Making the distinction between the customer and the ceremony is fucking stupid because without one you don't have the other.
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.
That's way too steep of a fine. By a long shot.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 09, 2015, 12:20:55 PMGays have gay weddings. Making the distinction between the customer and the ceremony is fucking stupid because without one you don't have the other.This is mental gymnastics of Camnator-esque levels. It doesn't matter who is buying the cake, it was rejected because of the ceremony. The gay couple could send their straight couple friends to order the cake, and it still would've been rejected. I don't even think the distinction is worthwhile making in most conversations, but it is if you're going to insist on a distinction not existing at all. All you're doing is following pointless lines of reasoning so you can impose your own sociological views on the Christians in this scenario.
Would the case still have had the same outcome on the same grounds?
Oregon bakery owners fined $135,000 for refusing to serve gay couple
