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

[WilliesStache14]

But they didn't. Because they aren't backwards thinking bigots.

so you think the situation is never reversed and there aren't any gay people that hate straight people? lol ok bud

news flash: straight white people aren't the only people on the planet who can be racist/bigoted

[Dral]

 

so you think the situation is never reversed and there aren't any gay people that hate straight people? lol ok bud

news flash: straight white people aren't the only people on the planet who can be racist/bigoted

 

I have never met or even heard of a gay person who hated a straight person simply because they were straight... seriously, where are getting this from?

edit: also, it's irrelevant - all kinds of people will hate all kinds of other people who stupid reason... that probably won't ever change. The point is you can have your archiac beliefs if you keep them private. You can hate straight people or hate gay people or black people or women or jews or whoever you want... what you can NOT do is refuse services to those people simply because you don't like them

[WilliesStache14]

   

I have never met or even heard of a gay person who hated a straight person simply because they were straight... seriously, where are getting this from?

and i've personally never met any black people hate white people just because they're white, but there are plenty out there that do

[RUPERTKBD]

so you think the situation is never reversed and there aren't any gay people that hate straight people? lol ok bud

news flash: straight white people aren't the only people on the planet who can be racist/bigoted

Not what I said, "bud". I said they didn't discriminate against them, based on their sexual orientation.

Besides, I'd be willing to bet that the number of gays who hate straights is infinitesimal, compared the the number of homophobes on this planet.

[Nucks4theCup.]

First and foremost Freedom of Speech is not absolute in Canada or the US. Hate speech, discrimination and bigotry are not protected by any laws in either country, infact quite the opposite as you can see in the title of this thread.

Next there are many private institutions that are also essential services. What if the power company refused to give power to someone because they were gay or black, is that ok in your mind?

Your final example about Hooters may be closer on target, however your one point about only attractive girls getting hired is not discrimination since attractiveness is subjective not definitive. If Hooters decided not to hire waitresses of a particular ethic background and it could be proven that is why they weren't hired then yes they would be breaking the law.

I will admit that they walk a fine line, and they have been scrutinized for their hiring practices in the past and will probably again in the future.

As for not hiring men, I suppose a discrimination case could be made if a qualified man really wanted to be a Hooters waitress but was not allowed to because he was man, but then again they could just say that he doesn't meet their attractiveness level. Grey area for sure.

If he was not hired because of being a man rather than not meeting their employment standards then a major lawsuit would be likely and justifiable.

In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US) or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada) or Genuine Occupational Qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—qualities that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination and thus in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.

[RUPERTKBD]

But it completely is about the cake. Yet here you are calling me obtuse.

A couple wanted another couple to bake them a cake for their wedding. The other couple did not want to bake said cake. That's what started this whole discussion, it's the lynchpin of the entire debacle. It's a cake. It's not access to a public service or denial of human rights. It's one redneck couple in their private bakery refusing to bake a cake for another couple. It's a matter of perspective at this point.

Your point of view is that they've managed to single handedly stop gay rights, whereas I see an exorbitant fine for not baking someone a cake. I don't care whatever bullcrap reason they had for not doing it, they're a private business, they can choose not to make cakes. You're acting like they went to a public hospital and got denied healthcare for being homosexual.

I don't have time to perform brain surgery, so I'll try one more time. If you still don't get it, there's no help for you.

The cake is irrelevant. It could have been a car. It could have been a house. It could have been a ride in a taxi....It could have been anything.

These people were refused service because they are gay. No matter what product or service they were trying to buy, they were victims of discrimination, based on their sexual orientation. This is not only wrong morally, it is illegal in this case.

There is no provision for breaking the laws of the land based on one's religious beliefs. They may NOT choose whom they do business with. You may believe otherwise, but you're at odds with the courts and with most forward-thinking people in that regard. I don't know why you can't seem to grasp this simple concept.

I hope that helps, because I honestly don't know how I can make that any clearer for you.

[thejazz97]

These people were refused service because they are gay. No matter what product or service they were trying to buy, they were victims of discrimination, based on their sexual orientation. This is not only wrong morally, it is illegal in this case.

No, it was because it was a same-sex marriage. I've said this before, if they just wanted the cake for a birthday or something, it would have been fine. The couple who bakery said it was about the event, not the couple or their sexuality.

[Nucks4theCup.]

No, it was because it was a same-sex marriage. I've said this before, if they just wanted the cake for a birthday or something, it would have been fine. The couple who bakery said it was about the event, not the couple or their sexuality.

hehe

[thejazz97]

I can't think of a single reason aside from sexuality being the problem with people who are against same sex marriage. Requires some mental gymnastics to try to convince someone you have no problem with those who are gay even though you are against same sex marriage.

They don't have a problem with the people, they just don't support same-sex marriage.

It's like you have a buddy who has McDonald's every day. You think he's a great guy, but you don't support what he's doing.

[McBackup]

I don't have time to perform brain surgery, so I'll try one more time. If you still don't get it, there's no help for you.

The cake is irrelevant. It could have been a car. It could have been a house. It could have been a ride in a taxi....It could have been anything.

These people were refused service because they are gay. No matter what product or service they were trying to buy, they were victims of discrimination, based on their sexual orientation. This is not only wrong morally, it is illegal in this case.

There is no provision for breaking the laws of the land based on one's religious beliefs. They may NOT choose whom they do business with. You may believe otherwise, but you're at odds with the courts and with most forward-thinking people in that regard. I don't know why you can't seem to grasp this simple concept.

I hope that helps, because I honestly don't know how I can make that any clearer for you.

Right, so is $135,000 enough, or do you think they should be jailed?

[Nucks4theCup.]

They don't have a problem with the people, they just don't support same-sex marriage.

It's like you have a buddy who has McDonald's every day. You think he's a great guy, but you don't support what he's doing.

flawless analogy brother, I don't even know how to respond to this one

[thejazz97]

flawless analogy brother, I don't even know how to respond to this one

Every analogy has its flaws. I'm just saying, you can should be able to serve everyone but choose to withdraw support for one time because you don't agree with what they're doing.

[Lockout Casualty]

They don't have a problem with the people, they just don't support same-sex marriage.

It's like you have a buddy who has McDonald's every day. You think he's a great guy, but you don't support what he's doing.

Christian bigots refuse service to lesbian couple because they were worried for their souls? That's what you're going with? Boy do you need to get out more and see the majority of Christians for what they really are.

[theminister]

TIL gay people hate their parents and siblings...

[theminister]

No, it was because it was a same-sex marriage. I've said this before, if they just wanted the cake for a birthday or something, it would have been fine. The couple who bakery said it was about the event, not the couple or their sexuality.

If it's not your church it shouldn't bother you.

If it's your church and it bothers you then change churches.

It's not incumbent on another to change their affiliation to suit your needs.

[Samuel Påhlsson]

$135,000 worth of equality.

[thejazz97]

If it's not your church it shouldn't bother you.

If it's your church and it bothers you then change churches.

It's not incumbent on another to change their affiliation to suit your needs.

The same could be said for bakeries.

[theminister]

The same could be said for bakeries.

No, it can't.

It is a matter of law. Same sex marriages are legal in Oregon and discrimination based on sexuality is not.

[RUPERTKBD]

Right, so is $135,000 enough, or do you think they should be jailed?

I agree that the damages are excessive, but unlike you, I'm not fixated on them.

The amount needs to be eye-catching in order to discourage others who might decide they can refuse service to customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

However, I think there's little chance that the gay couple will ever collect that amount. They'll likely settle out of court for a smaller sum, or appeal to have the damages reduced.

I am fine with either result. The important thing is that the message has been sent. Discriminate, and you will pay for it.

[thejazz97]

I am fine with either result. The important thing is that the message has been sent. Discriminate, and you will pay for it.

You have no idea how forceful that sounded in my head. Do you want me to be scared or something, because that's the vibe I'm getting off this.

My goodness. Society today is like tiptoeing through a floor of Legos and broken glass hoping you don't offend or don't accidentally discriminate against anyone.