Bakers face $135,000 fine for refusing to make cake for gay wedding

[Mikey2Dope]

People are offended by everything nowadays.

Does that mean we should all be losing our businesses and homes everytime someone doesn't agree with what we say?

What ever happened to free speech?

Free Speech ensure you have the right to say most anything you want to say without being penalized by the government. Free Speech doesn't mean you have the right to say and do anything that you please.

[TimberWolf]

There was a thread a while back about a Muslim refusing service for a haircut or something over here to non-muslims.

How you felt about that should be pretty much the same here.

While I think a business can serve who they want I would be horrified if they refused because it was say refusing because they were black for example.

[Heretic]

"$135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering "? What? Because someone wouldn't make them a cake?

Muricans....

[TimberWolf]

Free Speech ensure you have the right to say most anything you want to say without being penalized by the government. Free Speech doesn't mean you have the right to say and do anything that you please.

Yep. It allows you to speak or demonstrate against your government. be heard in court etc.

Not a free license to be a prick.

Don't believe me? Yell bomb in an airport

[kyledude]

You've obviously never been discriminated against or had any exposure to other cultures.

WTF? What do "other cultures" have to do with this?

My issue is with the $135,000 because it is ridiculous.

[Heretic]

As a Christian, I would bake that cake even though I believe God doesn't recognize gay marriage. They probably don't care what God thinks (we are left to assume they aren't Christians themselves), and are not looking for his approval, so why would these Christian baker be so offended as to not make a cake? I don't like how so many Christians completely miss the entire gospel message.

Why do you believe God doesn't recognize gay marriages? That's your choice to believe that, but if that's what you believe, then you must also believe that God doesn't recognize marriages of anyone who is not a Christian, ie, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc...etc...

Assuming gay people don't believe in God is just that, an assumption.

Jesus said, "Love one another", not "discriminate against one another"....

As far as the rights of a business, they should have the right to refuse service and not have to give a reason.

If you're a baker, should you be forced to bake a cake showing a man screwing a sheep? How about a cake showing someone being tortured? Or a person being hung?

No different than a firing range refusing to rent semi automatic guns to someone they don't believe should be shooting guns.

[Baer.]

WTF? What do "other cultures" have to do with this?

My issue is with the $135,000 because it is ridiculous.

Doesn't matter if it's ridiculous or not. They should have known the consequences as business owners.

Funny how this is still legal in Indiana, and you can actually post "No Gays Allowed" signs. Kinda brings you back to the 60's doesn't it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

[Baer.]

Why do you believe God doesn't recognize gay marriages? That's your choice to believe that, but if that's what you believe, then you must also believe that God doesn't recognize marriages of anyone who is not a Christian, ie, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc...etc...

Assuming gay people don't believe in God is just that, an assumption.

Jesus said, "Love one another", not "discriminate against one another"....

As far as the rights of a business, they should have the right to refuse service and not have to give a reason.

If you're a baker, should you be forced to bake a cake showing a man screwing a sheep? How about a cake showing someone being tortured? Or a person being hung?

No different than a firing range refusing to rent semi automatic guns to someone they don't believe should be shooting guns.

Bolded part has nothing to do with anything. It was a normal couple ordering a normal cake.

[Lockout Casualty]

Reading these posts makes me want to weep.

How in the world is it the same to refuse to make a particular kind of cake, say one depicting a man screwing a sheep, and to refuse to make a regular cake for a customer whom you discriminate against?

People get too emotional about this and completely forget to think.

What are the pertinent facts? Is it the fact a baker wouldn't make a cake, or is it that the baker discriminated against a patron based on a factor the patron cannot control? Obviously it's the latter, so why are so many people focusing on the cake? The cake is a red herring.

A wrong is a wrong, and whether it's over refusing to make a cake, or refusing to invest a billion dollars for a gay man, is completely irrelevant.

This couple was not awarded 135,000 for being refused to make a cake. They were awarded that money because they were discriminated against.

[Heretic]

Reading these posts makes me want to weep.

How in the world is it the same to refuse to make a particular kind of cake, say one depicting a man screwing a sheep, and to refuse to make a regular cake for a customer whom you discriminate against?

People get too emotional about this and completely forget to think.

What are the pertinent facts? Is it the fact a baker wouldn't make a cake, or is it that the baker discriminated against a patron based on a factor the patron cannot control? Obviously it's the latter, so why are so many people focusing on the cake? The cake is a red herring.

A wrong is a wrong, and whether it's over refusing to make a cake, or refusing to invest a billion dollars for a gay man, is completely irrelevant.

This couple was not awarded 135,000 for being refused to make a cake. They were awarded that money because they were discriminated against.

I agree with that.

Here's a "legal" look at a business's right to refuse service, after read it, I agree, the baker discriminated.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

by Jane Haskins, Esq.

Freelance writer

Sep 2007

Updated April 6, 2015

You’ve probably seen these signs at restaurants: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Or, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”

But what do these signs really mean? Can a business just refuse service to someone? Can they throw you out if you forgot your flip-flops on the beach? When is a refusal to serve someone justified and when is it discrimination that could lead to a lawsuit?

The issue made big headlines recently, when the state of Indiana passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Gay rights activists immediately protested that the law was just a way to legalize discrimination against gays: any business owner could now refuse to serve them simply by citing a religious objection.

The law caused such a firestorm that the legislature hastily enacted an amendment clarifying that the law could not be used to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. But with other states also considering religious freedom laws, the issue isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.

If you feel you have been discriminated against, a LegalZoom legal plan attorney might be able to help. When you sign up for a legal plan, you will have access to personalizedlegal advice on an unlimited number of new legal matters for a low monthly fee. Learn more about the many benefits of the LegalZoom personal legal plan.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

[Lockout Casualty]

I agree with that.

Here's a "legal" look at a business's right to refuse service, after read it, I agree, the baker discriminated.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?

by Jane Haskins, Esq.

Freelance writer

Sep 2007

Updated April 6, 2015

You’ve probably seen these signs at restaurants: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Or, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”

But what do these signs really mean? Can a business just refuse service to someone? Can they throw you out if you forgot your flip-flops on the beach? When is a refusal to serve someone justified and when is it discrimination that could lead to a lawsuit?

The issue made big headlines recently, when the state of Indiana passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Gay rights activists immediately protested that the law was just a way to legalize discrimination against gays: any business owner could now refuse to serve them simply by citing a religious objection.

The law caused such a firestorm that the legislature hastily enacted an amendment clarifying that the law could not be used to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. But with other states also considering religious freedom laws, the issue isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.

If you feel you have been discriminated against, a LegalZoom legal plan attorney might be able to help. When you sign up for a legal plan, you will have access to personalizedlegal advice on an unlimited number of new legal matters for a low monthly fee. Learn more about the many benefits of the LegalZoom personal legal plan.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

Awesome! Hopefully it rubs off on others.

[thejazz97]

Reading these posts makes me want to weep.

How in the world is it the same to refuse to make a particular kind of cake, say one depicting a man screwing a sheep, and to refuse to make a regular cake for a customer whom you discriminate against?

People get too emotional about this and completely forget to think.

What are the pertinent facts? Is it the fact a baker wouldn't make a cake, or is it that the baker discriminated against a patron based on a factor the patron cannot control? Obviously it's the latter, so why are so many people focusing on the cake? The cake is a red herring.

A wrong is a wrong, and whether it's over refusing to make a cake, or refusing to invest a billion dollars for a gay man, is completely irrelevant.

This couple was not awarded 135,000 for being refused to make a cake. They were awarded that money because they were discriminated against.

First of all, they were getting married. I'm pretty sure that means the patron was controlling it to some extent.

Second, so if I ever feel discriminated against for being a Christian, I can just go and demand they pay me upwards of $100k because my feelings were hurt?

But yes, I agree with the fact that they were discriminated against and that that was wrong.... I still think the $135k is a bit absurd, though.

[Chalky]

Take the cake out of the argument, it has nothing to do with cake. Thankfully Canadian laws and policy are not affected by anonymous online sports team forums.

[Chalky]

First of all, they were getting married. I'm pretty sure that means the patron was controlling it to some extent.

Second, so if I ever feel discriminated against for being a Christian, I can just go and demand they pay me upwards of $100k because my feelings were hurt?

But yes, I agree with the fact that they were discriminated against and that that was wrong.... I still think the $135k is a bit absurd, though.

Discrimination itself is not illegal. If someone breaks a law while discriminating against you then you can sue them, yes. You will have to be more specific with your example if you are going to relate it to being Christian though.

[Baer.]

Second, so if I ever feel discriminated against for being a Christian, I can just go and demand they pay me upwards of $100k because my feelings were hurt?

Show me a place in white America where you are descriminated for being Christian, and I'll show you a flying pig.

[Caboose]

Replace 'Lesbian Couple' with 'Black Man' and see if people still argue in favour of the bakery.

Shows how homophobic we still are as a society.

You people disgust me.

[Lockout Casualty]

First of all, they were getting married. I'm pretty sure that means the patron was controlling it to some extent.

Second, so if I ever feel discriminated against for being a Christian, I can just go and demand they pay me upwards of $100k because my feelings were hurt?

But yes, I agree with the fact that they were discriminated against and that that was wrong.... I still think the $135k is a bit absurd, though.

So they were refused a cake because they were getting married? Funny, I thought it was because they were gay and getting married.

No, you can't just go and demand they pay you anything. You can, however, sue and allow a judge to decide.

In two sentences, you managed to miss the mark twice. There should be a separate board for you, like a kid's table at adult birthday parties.

[Webster6]

So much aggression and so little testosterone!

[*VaNcOuVeRCaNuCkS*]

Hmmm... I think I might turn gay and try this stunt somewhere around here to get a nice cool $135K

Personally they should only be awarded reimbursement for the price of the cake they had to get somewhere else and maybe 5 cents for their "emotional" distress but I guess they are allowed to ruin someone else's life at any cost even when their life is hardly affected.

We all know for someone who isn't religious and or gay they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were refused service and isn't that discriminatory as well

[2SKATES1STICK]

Fox news? They make it sound like the Gay couple are at fault.

Yes, THEY are the ones done wrong. That whole country is a joke.

All they talk about is "violating beliefs" when at the same time they are violating basic human rights. What's more important?

human right to force someone to bake a cake for your non-religious religion-based ceremony.

LOLOK