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

[RUPERTKBD]

135K is harsh but they get zero sympathy from me since it appears that the only reason they refused service was because of the sexual orientation of their customers. That doesn't fly in this day and age its the same as if they refused to serve a black person because they're black and I'm not surprised at all to see people defending the bakery owners yes it's their right to serve whom they please BUT that goes out the door when they chose not to serve someone because of something that the customer has no control over (Race , gender , sexual orientation, ect)

My $0.02

Worth far more than that...

[literaphile]

In British Columbia, the bakery would be in violation of the Human Rights Code. Section 8 states that businesses cannot discriminate "regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public".

Clearly, a bakery is a service that is "customarily available to the public". Contrary to public opinion, you can't pick and choose your customers and you can't deny a service on discriminatory grounds. Sexual orientation is one such discriminatory ground (again, at least in BC - and our legislation more or less reflects the current state of thinking in North America).

[Langdon Algur]

 

the cake was for a lesbian wedding, which is why they refused to do it.

 

So would it be ok if the cake was for an inter-racial wedding then and they refused it for that reason?

[BeefcakeBo]

You should go back and read the thread more closely.

There are several posts saying "just go to a different bakery" and "they should have the right to refuse service to whoever they want", etc., etc. (see the quoted post below...)

The money awarded is secondary, IMO to the fact that many people in the thread don't seem to think that there's anything wrong with discriminating based on sexual orientation.

Well considering that it's not considered discrimination in over half of the country it's a little bit of a grey area. I'm not saying that it's right, but depending on where you are it gets treated much differently.

I think that the fact that same sex rights are such a popular topic lately it got a more extreme treatment than most cases of discrimination do.

Like if a black baker refused to bake a wedding cake for members of the kkk. Would you be ok with the judge handing out a 135k fine? Or would you think it appropriate for the law to say the business owner finds you offensive, so go somewhere else? It's pretty likely at that point that the customer is just purposely trying to do damages to the business and posing a fine is just enabling that. Even though it would be just as much discrimination in either case.

I'm just pointing out that a lesbian couple likely doesn't share the same religious views. So it seems more likely (to me at least) that they are using the legal system to do damages to the business because of that reason, or to promote their views to changes in other states. Rather than simply seeking reimbursement for the hardships of having to get the cake somewhere else.

It should really be simple enough to take your money elsewhere and cause losses through a bunch of bad press for the business.

[Gurn]

Elaborate.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns300-350/326/menu-eng.html

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/mrtl/menu-eng.html

"The CRA will recalculate your benefits based on the number of children you have and their ages, your province or territory of residence, and your revised family net income based on your marital status change. Your benefits will be adjusted the month following the month in which your marital status changed."

Income splitting is also being discussed for married folk.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

Interesting. Vancouver hockey fans (or just CDC) are very socially conservative, even on social matters such as these. Hmm.

[thejazz97]

So would it be ok if the cake was for an inter-racial wedding then and they refused it for that reason?

If that's what they believed, then it would be okay for them. It's not right, but it is what they think/thought is right.

The money will never be collected. They will settle out of court for far less than $135k, or the bakery will declare bankruptcy.

Bakery can't declare bankruptcy, , since the bakery already went out of business a while ago. Samaritan's Purse (the people who collect the Christmas shoeboxes for third-world countries) are taking up donations to pay the fine.

The only thing that you're correct about is that it shouldn't have gotten this far. The bakery owners should have realized that they were violating the customers' civil rights and made the wedding cake.

Look, for Christians, God's approval is much more important than people's approval. While the penalty is harsh, what they did was still wrong (Christians have two laws: Love God and love others) and if they've realized it, they've probably asked God for forgiveness (maybe even the lesbian couple). They should have made the cake.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

If that's what they believed, then it would be okay for them. It's not right, but it is what they think/thought is right.

Bakery can't declare bankruptcy, , since the bakery already went out of business a while ago. Samaritan's Purse (the people who collect the Christmas shoeboxes for third-world countries) are taking up donations to pay the fine.

Look, for Christians, God's approval is much more important than people's approval. While the penalty is harsh, what they did was still wrong (Christians have two laws: Love God and love others) and if they've realized it, they've probably asked God for forgiveness (maybe even the lesbian couple). They should have made the cake.

Maybe it's because you're still young, but you'll quickly realize that you can't speak for all Christians. You can speak for yourself, and at best, your own church (as long as it's a small one). Republican Christianity is... what it is.

Samaritan's Purse is become sketchier by the day. The stories I've heard about their practices...

[thejazz97]

Maybe it's because you're still young, but you'll quickly realize that you can't speak for all Christians. You can speak for yourself, and at best, your own church (as long as it's a small one). Republican Christianity is... what it is.

Samaritan's Purse is become sketchier by the day. The stories I've heard about their practices...

Sorry, I'm just making generalizations about what should happen. I don't know them personally so I can't totally speak for them, but if they are believers who are active in their faith, there should be something lining up between what I said and what they actually did. ut like you said, RC is what it is. I have no idea why some people do what they do for God tbh (like WBC).

What have you heard about SP? Any links?

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

Sorry, I'm just making generalizations about what should happen. I don't know them personally so I can't totally speak for them, but if they are believers who are active in their faith, there should be something lining up between what I said and what they actually did. ut like you said, RC is what it is. I have no idea why some people do what they do for God tbh (like WBC).

What have you heard about SP? Any links?

Simply by association with Franklin Graham, the group's president. And what a nutjob he is. Specific to SP, there have always been stories and accounts of them giving out boxes to those who accept conversion. And I'm not cool with converting third-world kids.

[RUPERTKBD]

Well considering that it's not considered discrimination in over half of the country it's a little bit of a grey area. I'm not saying that it's right, but depending on where you are it gets treated much differently.

I think that the fact that same sex rights are such a popular topic lately it got a more extreme treatment than most cases of discrimination do.

Like if a black baker refused to bake a wedding cake for members of the kkk. Would you be ok with the judge handing out a 135k fine? Or would you think it appropriate for the law to say the business owner finds you offensive, so go somewhere else? It's pretty likely at that point that the customer is just purposely trying to do damages to the business and posing a fine is just enabling that. Even though it would be just as much discrimination in either case.

I'm just pointing out that a lesbian couple likely doesn't share the same religious views. So it seems more likely (to me at least) that they are using the legal system to do damages to the business because of that reason, or to promote their views to changes in other states. Rather than simply seeking reimbursement for the hardships of having to get the cake somewhere else.

It should really be simple enough to take your money elsewhere and cause losses through a bunch of bad press for the business.

The amount is completely irrelevant to me.

The baker would have the right to refuse to bake the cake if the Klan members harassed him or if the cake was to be decorated in a racially offensive manner.

Otherwise, you are in business and you don't have the right to discriminate based on your customers' beliefs, even if they are offensive.

[RUPERTKBD]

Bakery can't declare bankruptcy, , since the bakery already went out of business a while ago. Samaritan's Purse (the people who collect the Christmas shoeboxes for third-world countries) are taking up donations to pay the fine.

Color me unsurprised that they went out of business...

But I find it disappointing in the extreme that a religious group is taking donations for these bigots. So many worthy causes for that money to go to...

[Langdon Algur]

 

If that's what they believed, then it would be okay for them. It's not right, but it is what they think/thought is right.

.

No no it isn't, it would violate the Charter or Rights.

[RUPERTKBD]

Well considering that it's not considered discrimination in over half of the country it's a little bit of a grey area. I'm not saying that it's right, but depending on where you are it gets treated much differently.

Discrimination is discrimination.

Just because some backwards societies have decided that's it okay, doesn't make it any less discriminatory.

[thejazz97]

Color me unsurprised that they went out of business...

But I find it disappointing in the extreme that a religious group is taking donations for these bigots. So many worthy causes for that money to go to...

They were just doing what they believed what's right. It may not have been, but don't call someone a bigot over it. You don't call someone a liar when they were unknowingly not telling the truth. They're just misinformed.

Simply by association with Franklin Graham, the group's president. And what a nutjob he is. Specific to SP, there have always been stories and accounts of them giving out boxes to those who accept conversion. And I'm not cool with converting third-world kids.

They should be giving boxes to everyone, not just those who convert. Like, believers in Christ are supposed to dole out hope like whipped cream and butter on waffles, not tease them with support like a carrot on a stick so that you can make a video about them. I have no problem with leading third-world kids to Christ. Oftentimes, they're the most powerful Christians. But trading support boxes for conversion - that's wrong.

No no it isn't, it would violate the Charter or Rights.

God's law > Charter of Rights in their minds (mine as well), but they've misinterpreted God's law and screwed everything up.

[King Heffy]

Bottom line is the establishment violated the law. Is the penalty harsh? Of course it is. If the penalty was about the same as the financial burden, businesses wouldn't think twice about pulling this kind of BS. The large settlement acts as quite an effective deterrent; not only will these scumbags be unlikely to illegally discriminate against a protected group, it puts other businesses in the jurisdiction on notice that ignorant bigotry is unacceptable and will be dealt with harshly.

[RUPERTKBD]

They were just doing what they believed what's right. It may not have been, but don't call someone a bigot over it. You don't call someone a liar when they were unknowingly not telling the truth. They're just misinformed.

You make it sound like they didn't realize what they were doing, which is totally inaccurate.

They knew exactly what they were doing and now they're playing martyr as a result.

[thejazz97]

You make it sound like they didn't realize what they were doing, which is totally inaccurate.

They knew exactly what they were doing and now they're playing martyr as a result.

They knew exactly what they were doing but they didn't realize it was actually not right of them and they didn't realize it would lead to this.

[Neversummer]

$135K, damn ... it must be real painful not to eat that cake for your wedding.

Give your friggin head a shake bridezilla ... go to cake shop down the block.

[aGENT]

They knew exactly what they were doing but they didn't realize it was actually not right of them and they didn't realize it would lead to this.

No, I think the problem is that they still don't realize it's not right..