(02-04-2013 02:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You see this as minutia. I get it. In the overall scheme of things this isn't the most important thng.

But before you get upset about the case though, how would you feel if a hotel or a baker or a photographer said "sorry - we don't serve perverted Baptists like you"? So long as a business can't discriminate against customers based upon their relgion, I see no reason why Gays should not enjoy those same protections.

Actually Tom, I see the minutae in your response and feel that you aren't seeing the bigger picture. Assuming that there is a place where there is only enough business to support one custom baker, and that gays would be the only people in that area subject to discrimination... thus the baker, should he wish to do any business at all, MUST offer "custom" services to everyone. Would you support a gay baker being forced to make an "I hate gay people" cake? If you were a baker and somebody demanded that you write "God Hates Gay People" on your cake, would it be okay for you to refuse? How about a Jewish baker and a cake celebrating the Holocaust?

My son is a singer, and he offers to sing things by request. They can hire him to sing anything on his playlist, and he will do so. They can also ASK him to sing something else, but he can refuse. What I mean is, if I offer to bake cakes and you want a cake for a gay wedding, I can't deny you a cake that I otherwise make as a practice (bakers usually have books of cakes) but I should be able to deny you specific words or even symbols on that cake. ***** cakes are popular at batchelorette parties, but I can't force someone to make a ***** cake if they don't want to, can I? If you want two grooms, then put them on yourself. If you want specific words, do it yourself. If you want a shape I don't do, then ask someone else. If there IS nobody else, then too bad. Just because I offer custom services, doesn't mean I have to offer EVERY custom service.

You're muddling the issue. The baker provides services for other weddings. They simply chose to deny service based upon the sexual orientation of the couple. This isn't like making a ***** cake. They make wedding cakes.

Oregon law says differently. And the law is there for a reason. Because public accomodations should be open to everyone. Tennessee allows people to discriminate against persons based upon sexual orientation. However, bigots in Tennessee should be careful as there are counties and cities (e.g., Nashville) where public accomodations protections extend to Gay persons.

The good news is that now everyone knows that the baker is towering bigot. I wonder if he refuses to make cakes or Jewish weddings because that would imply some sort of endorsement of Jesus not being the son of God.

(02-04-2013 02:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You're muddling the issue.

No you've muddled the issue. The fact is people who don't get to choose who they work for are called "slaves".

You like seeing people enslaved. You think that others are too stupid to recognize it if you use different words. Many of your friends probably are... we're not.

(02-04-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  That being said, I certainly wouldn't want some hateful bigot enjoying my dollars. However, I think these cases do increase awareness of the bigoted company and at least might make it less likely that other Gays would be insulted by the owners of that service.

Agree with us or we will put you out of business... That's not awareness that's extortion.

Quote:But before you get upset about the case though, how would you feel if a hotel or a baker or a photographer said "sorry - we don't serve perverted Baptists like you"?

Pissed... Would I take them to court? no, I would go look for another photographer.

(02-04-2013 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:But before you get upset about the case though, how would you feel if a hotel or a baker or a photographer said "sorry - we don't serve perverted Baptists like you"?

Pissed... Would I take them to court? no, I would go look for another photographer.

Maybe that's how YOU would handle it, but I bet most wouldn't. It would undoubtedly spread like wildfire on Facebook/Twitter and would eventually be a major story on Fox News.

Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

(02-04-2013 03:35 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:But before you get upset about the case though, how would you feel if a hotel or a baker or a photographer said "sorry - we don't serve perverted Baptists like you"?

Pissed... Would I take them to court? no, I would go look for another photographer.

Maybe that's how YOU would handle it, but I bet most wouldn't. It would undoubtedly spread like wildfire on Facebook/Twitter and would eventually be a major story on Fox News.

None of which is as bad as suing and trying to use the government to punish the business.

Look if these two folks wanted to protest across the street, start a twitter revolution, facebook the owner into shame.. That's fine but it's not the same as trying to get the AG to sanction the business..

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

you're clearly a homophobe and a racissss

(02-04-2013 02:47 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 02:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You're muddling the issue.

No you've muddled the issue. The fact is people who don't get to choose who they work for are called "slaves".

You like seeing people enslaved. You think that others are too stupid to recognize it if you use different words. Many of your friends probably are... we're not.

On a Federal Level, we've already established that businesses can be compelled to serve persons against their wishes. That legislation is not in dispute. Those bills have been part of our case law and statutes for 50 years or more.

The only question is, do we have those special protections for religion, race, gender, etc., and deny those protections for sexual orientation?

If you think that you have the right to operate a restaurant and deny service to Blacks, or Jews, etc., you'll find out very quickly that you cannot stay in business as a for-profit entity and do so. In Oregon (as well many other states and municipalities) you cannot deny services to persons simply because they are Gay as well. I understand you think that is slavery. Well if having to abide by non-discrimination ordinances is slavery, well then every business owner has been a slave for a LONG time now.

And this is ridiculous. Does the baker actually believe that he is endorsing every marriage he ices a cake for?

The individual case - not that important. The public accomodation protection brought up by the case is vitally important.

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

The problem is that discriminated against classes may be forced to pay more for a particular service as a result of bigoted persons not serving them. And there may not be enough of a marketplace for an alternate service provider to exist in that market.

Its not so simple. There's a reason why businesses cannot discriminate.

Free markets aren't efficient if they are constrained.

(02-04-2013 03:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Free markets aren't efficient if they are constrained.

LOL. "Free markets" also aren't free if they are constrained.

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

Better yet, why would you want someone that supposedly hates you to make your food?

(02-04-2013 03:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

The problem is that discriminated against classes may be forced to pay more for a particular service as a result of bigoted persons not serving them. And there may not be enough of a marketplace for an alternate service provider to exist in that market.

Its not so simple. There's a reason why businesses cannot discriminate.

Free markets aren't efficient if they are constrained.

Blazer already addressed this but I think it's worth reinforcing because this is such an odd context for you to refer to "free markets." First of all, allowing a business to discriminate IS a component of a free market (they are acting freely, no?). Requiring a business to provide a service/product against its will IS a constraint. Finally, no one in their right mind thinks that we have much of a free market in the US. Maybe a few individual markets (illegal drugs and most black market stuff, I guess), but given taxes, permits, licenses, and most business regulatory structure I don't think "free" is a very good way to describe markets in this country. Not putting a value judgement on it; just saying that's not an apt characterization.

And to your earlier point, it IS that simple. If we're going to have a free society it has to be this way. I'm more than happy with your freedom to marry your partner. And for me, that means I also have to be happy with a baker's freedom to bake for whom he chooses. Your government-obtained ability to force that baker to perform for you is infringing on his freedom.

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

Because there's no power or money in your solution

(02-04-2013 03:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  On a Federal Level, we've already established that businesses can be compelled to serve persons against their wishes. That legislation is not in dispute. Those bills have been part of our case law and statutes for 50 years or more.

The only question is, do we have those special protections for religion, race, gender, etc., and deny those protections for sexual orientation?

If you think that you have the right to operate a restaurant and deny service to Blacks, or Jews, etc., you'll find out very quickly that you cannot stay in business as a for-profit entity and do so. In Oregon (as well many other states and municipalities) you cannot deny services to persons simply because they are Gay as well. I understand you think that is slavery. Well if having to abide by non-discrimination ordinances is slavery, well then every business owner has been a slave for a LONG time now.

And this is ridiculous. Does the baker actually believe that he is endorsing every marriage he ices a cake for?

The individual case - not that important. The public accomodation protection brought up by the case is vitally important.

You keep ignoring my point, Tom, and focusing on THIS point.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a wedding cake should be a Federal issue? We're not REALLY talking about discrimination here and you know it. I can't walk into a baker and force him to make something he doesn't choose to make any more than I can walk into a restaurant, even one that does special requests and force them to cook me a kosher meal.

Quote:"They can buy my stuff," said Klein. "I'll sell them stuff ... I'll talk to them, it's fine."

No discrimination.

The "self-importance" of the entire class of "discriminated" people is an insult to those who DIED for your rights.... and I'm sure now that I've insulted you, you'll find the time to address the real issue here.

The baker can bake things and you can buy them. He has clearly stated that they can buy his stuff. They asked for a custom cake and he declined to share his "art" in that way. Your point is that he can't make something and then not sell it to them. THAT is what the federal law says. That isn't alleged here.

I greatly appreciate your perspective, Tom, and I understand that not everyone on here does... but you're barking up the wrong tree with this. People have a right to be bigots in this country. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you that it is short-sighted... I mean seriously... who plans better weddings than gay people?? but the law doesn't mean what you keep trying to say it means.

(02-04-2013 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

Because there's no power or money in your solution

(02-04-2013 03:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  On a Federal Level, we've already established that businesses can be compelled to serve persons against their wishes. That legislation is not in dispute. Those bills have been part of our case law and statutes for 50 years or more.

The only question is, do we have those special protections for religion, race, gender, etc., and deny those protections for sexual orientation?

If you think that you have the right to operate a restaurant and deny service to Blacks, or Jews, etc., you'll find out very quickly that you cannot stay in business as a for-profit entity and do so. In Oregon (as well many other states and municipalities) you cannot deny services to persons simply because they are Gay as well. I understand you think that is slavery. Well if having to abide by non-discrimination ordinances is slavery, well then every business owner has been a slave for a LONG time now.

And this is ridiculous. Does the baker actually believe that he is endorsing every marriage he ices a cake for?

The individual case - not that important. The public accomodation protection brought up by the case is vitally important.

You keep ignoring my point, Tom, and focusing on THIS point.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a wedding cake should be a Federal issue? We're not REALLY talking about discrimination here and you know it. I can't walk into a baker and force him to make something he doesn't choose to make any more than I can walk into a restaurant, even one that does special requests and force them to cook me a kosher meal.

Quote:"They can buy my stuff," said Klein. "I'll sell them stuff ... I'll talk to them, it's fine."

No discrimination.

The "self-importance" of the entire class of "discriminated" people is an insult to those who DIED for your rights.... and I'm sure now that I've insulted you, you'll find the time to address the real issue here.

The baker can bake things and you can buy them. He has clearly stated that they can buy his stuff. They asked for a custom cake and he declined to share his "art" in that way. Your point is that he can't make something and then not sell it to them. THAT is what the federal law says. That isn't alleged here.

I greatly appreciate your perspective, Tom, and I understand that not everyone on here does... but you're barking up the wrong tree with this. People have a right to be bigots in this country. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you that it is short-sighted... I mean seriously... who plans better weddings than gay people?? but the law doesn't mean what you keep trying to say it means.

So where do you draw the line? Seeing as it is obviously illegal for the baker to refuse to provide services (that he provides for other couples) to an interracial couple, then why should that person be allowed to discriminate against Gay persons?

This case, while kind of stupid (the town is in Multinomah County Oregon - one of the most liberal counties in America), the issue isn't stupid in other respects.

I'll give you an example. Some friends of mine ended up renting a facility for a wedding. After time had passed (and the rentals at alternate facilities went up or became unavailable), the venue abruptly decided to cancel the rental because they couple is Gay. I think in a case like that, that the venue should be held to make the couple whole, either by honoring the contract or by providing a suitable venue at the same price (and suitable is to be at the approval of the couple).

People refuse to rent to Gay men or Lesbians. That should be as illegal as it would be if someone refused to rent to Black persons.

In short, this particular case is stupid. The reason why these laws exist is not.

Besides, if some religious moron wants to discriminate, he should have to put that into all signage, marketing, and advertising in a prominent place so that people don't waste their time trying to deal with some bigot. How about a nice big sign out front "We discriminate against Gays".

(02-04-2013 06:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

Because there's no power or money in your solution

(02-04-2013 03:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  On a Federal Level, we've already established that businesses can be compelled to serve persons against their wishes. That legislation is not in dispute. Those bills have been part of our case law and statutes for 50 years or more.

The only question is, do we have those special protections for religion, race, gender, etc., and deny those protections for sexual orientation?

If you think that you have the right to operate a restaurant and deny service to Blacks, or Jews, etc., you'll find out very quickly that you cannot stay in business as a for-profit entity and do so. In Oregon (as well many other states and municipalities) you cannot deny services to persons simply because they are Gay as well. I understand you think that is slavery. Well if having to abide by non-discrimination ordinances is slavery, well then every business owner has been a slave for a LONG time now.

And this is ridiculous. Does the baker actually believe that he is endorsing every marriage he ices a cake for?

The individual case - not that important. The public accomodation protection brought up by the case is vitally important.

You keep ignoring my point, Tom, and focusing on THIS point.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a wedding cake should be a Federal issue? We're not REALLY talking about discrimination here and you know it. I can't walk into a baker and force him to make something he doesn't choose to make any more than I can walk into a restaurant, even one that does special requests and force them to cook me a kosher meal.

Quote:"They can buy my stuff," said Klein. "I'll sell them stuff ... I'll talk to them, it's fine."

No discrimination.

The "self-importance" of the entire class of "discriminated" people is an insult to those who DIED for your rights.... and I'm sure now that I've insulted you, you'll find the time to address the real issue here.

The baker can bake things and you can buy them. He has clearly stated that they can buy his stuff. They asked for a custom cake and he declined to share his "art" in that way. Your point is that he can't make something and then not sell it to them. THAT is what the federal law says. That isn't alleged here.

I greatly appreciate your perspective, Tom, and I understand that not everyone on here does... but you're barking up the wrong tree with this. People have a right to be bigots in this country. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you that it is short-sighted... I mean seriously... who plans better weddings than gay people?? but the law doesn't mean what you keep trying to say it means.

So where do you draw the line? Seeing as it is obviously illegal for the baker to refuse to provide services (that he provides for other couples) to an interracial couple, then why should that person be allowed to discriminate against Gay persons?

This case, while kind of stupid (the town is in Multinomah County Oregon - one of the most liberal counties in America), the issue isn't stupid in other respects.

I'll give you an example. Some friends of mine ended up renting a facility for a wedding. After time had passed (and the rentals at alternate facilities went up or became unavailable), the venue abruptly decided to cancel the rental because they couple is Gay. I think in a case like that, that the venue should be held to make the couple whole, either by honoring the contract or by providing a suitable venue at the same price (and suitable is to be at the approval of the couple).

People refuse to rent to Gay men or Lesbians. That should be as illegal as it would be if someone refused to rent to Black persons.

In short, this particular case is stupid. The reason why these laws exist is not.

Besides, if some religious moron wants to discriminate, he should have to put that into all signage, marketing, and advertising in a prominent place so that people don't waste their time trying to deal with some bigot. How about a nice big sign out front "We discriminate against Gays".

Like you wear a sign saying I discriminate against religion....amirite?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(02-04-2013 06:55 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 06:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

Because there's no power or money in your solution

(02-04-2013 03:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  On a Federal Level, we've already established that businesses can be compelled to serve persons against their wishes. That legislation is not in dispute. Those bills have been part of our case law and statutes for 50 years or more.

The only question is, do we have those special protections for religion, race, gender, etc., and deny those protections for sexual orientation?

If you think that you have the right to operate a restaurant and deny service to Blacks, or Jews, etc., you'll find out very quickly that you cannot stay in business as a for-profit entity and do so. In Oregon (as well many other states and municipalities) you cannot deny services to persons simply because they are Gay as well. I understand you think that is slavery. Well if having to abide by non-discrimination ordinances is slavery, well then every business owner has been a slave for a LONG time now.

And this is ridiculous. Does the baker actually believe that he is endorsing every marriage he ices a cake for?

The individual case - not that important. The public accomodation protection brought up by the case is vitally important.

You keep ignoring my point, Tom, and focusing on THIS point.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a wedding cake should be a Federal issue? We're not REALLY talking about discrimination here and you know it. I can't walk into a baker and force him to make something he doesn't choose to make any more than I can walk into a restaurant, even one that does special requests and force them to cook me a kosher meal.

Quote:"They can buy my stuff," said Klein. "I'll sell them stuff ... I'll talk to them, it's fine."

No discrimination.

The "self-importance" of the entire class of "discriminated" people is an insult to those who DIED for your rights.... and I'm sure now that I've insulted you, you'll find the time to address the real issue here.

The baker can bake things and you can buy them. He has clearly stated that they can buy his stuff. They asked for a custom cake and he declined to share his "art" in that way. Your point is that he can't make something and then not sell it to them. THAT is what the federal law says. That isn't alleged here.

I greatly appreciate your perspective, Tom, and I understand that not everyone on here does... but you're barking up the wrong tree with this. People have a right to be bigots in this country. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you that it is short-sighted... I mean seriously... who plans better weddings than gay people?? but the law doesn't mean what you keep trying to say it means.

So where do you draw the line? Seeing as it is obviously illegal for the baker to refuse to provide services (that he provides for other couples) to an interracial couple, then why should that person be allowed to discriminate against Gay persons?

This case, while kind of stupid (the town is in Multinomah County Oregon - one of the most liberal counties in America), the issue isn't stupid in other respects.

I'll give you an example. Some friends of mine ended up renting a facility for a wedding. After time had passed (and the rentals at alternate facilities went up or became unavailable), the venue abruptly decided to cancel the rental because they couple is Gay. I think in a case like that, that the venue should be held to make the couple whole, either by honoring the contract or by providing a suitable venue at the same price (and suitable is to be at the approval of the couple).

People refuse to rent to Gay men or Lesbians. That should be as illegal as it would be if someone refused to rent to Black persons.

In short, this particular case is stupid. The reason why these laws exist is not.

Besides, if some religious moron wants to discriminate, he should have to put that into all signage, marketing, and advertising in a prominent place so that people don't waste their time trying to deal with some bigot. How about a nice big sign out front "We discriminate against Gays".

Like you wear a sign saying I discriminate against religion....amirite?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

I've sold services to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I told the (not-gay and not that liberal) workers there that didn't want to deal with them "Their money is just as good as someone else's, don't like what they do, use your bonus to donate to someone to counteract what they do".

It would be really hypocritical if I demanded non-discrimination from others while I discriminated against others.

Besides, its AGAINST the law to discriminate against people because of their religion. I'd argue that given that its illegal to discriminate against people because they are fundamentalists, then it should also be illegal (as it is in many jurisdictions, including Oregon) for fundamentalists to discriminate against persons because of their sexual orientation. All we ask for is the exact same protection under the law that our opponents enjoy currently.

(02-04-2013 07:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 06:55 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 06:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 03:41 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Ugh - why do we have to twist things up so much to find a solution? Why would you want to give money to some vendor that you find objectionable? Isn't everybody and everything, including the market, better off if you use market solutions for satisfaction? Take your business elsewhere, boycott the first guy, etc.?

Because there's no power or money in your solution

(02-04-2013 03:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  On a Federal Level, we've already established that businesses can be compelled to serve persons against their wishes. That legislation is not in dispute. Those bills have been part of our case law and statutes for 50 years or more.

The only question is, do we have those special protections for religion, race, gender, etc., and deny those protections for sexual orientation?

If you think that you have the right to operate a restaurant and deny service to Blacks, or Jews, etc., you'll find out very quickly that you cannot stay in business as a for-profit entity and do so. In Oregon (as well many other states and municipalities) you cannot deny services to persons simply because they are Gay as well. I understand you think that is slavery. Well if having to abide by non-discrimination ordinances is slavery, well then every business owner has been a slave for a LONG time now.

And this is ridiculous. Does the baker actually believe that he is endorsing every marriage he ices a cake for?

The individual case - not that important. The public accomodation protection brought up by the case is vitally important.

You keep ignoring my point, Tom, and focusing on THIS point.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a wedding cake should be a Federal issue? We're not REALLY talking about discrimination here and you know it. I can't walk into a baker and force him to make something he doesn't choose to make any more than I can walk into a restaurant, even one that does special requests and force them to cook me a kosher meal.

Quote:"They can buy my stuff," said Klein. "I'll sell them stuff ... I'll talk to them, it's fine."

No discrimination.

The "self-importance" of the entire class of "discriminated" people is an insult to those who DIED for your rights.... and I'm sure now that I've insulted you, you'll find the time to address the real issue here.

The baker can bake things and you can buy them. He has clearly stated that they can buy his stuff. They asked for a custom cake and he declined to share his "art" in that way. Your point is that he can't make something and then not sell it to them. THAT is what the federal law says. That isn't alleged here.

I greatly appreciate your perspective, Tom, and I understand that not everyone on here does... but you're barking up the wrong tree with this. People have a right to be bigots in this country. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you that it is short-sighted... I mean seriously... who plans better weddings than gay people?? but the law doesn't mean what you keep trying to say it means.

So where do you draw the line? Seeing as it is obviously illegal for the baker to refuse to provide services (that he provides for other couples) to an interracial couple, then why should that person be allowed to discriminate against Gay persons?

This case, while kind of stupid (the town is in Multinomah County Oregon - one of the most liberal counties in America), the issue isn't stupid in other respects.

I'll give you an example. Some friends of mine ended up renting a facility for a wedding. After time had passed (and the rentals at alternate facilities went up or became unavailable), the venue abruptly decided to cancel the rental because they couple is Gay. I think in a case like that, that the venue should be held to make the couple whole, either by honoring the contract or by providing a suitable venue at the same price (and suitable is to be at the approval of the couple).

People refuse to rent to Gay men or Lesbians. That should be as illegal as it would be if someone refused to rent to Black persons.

In short, this particular case is stupid. The reason why these laws exist is not.

Besides, if some religious moron wants to discriminate, he should have to put that into all signage, marketing, and advertising in a prominent place so that people don't waste their time trying to deal with some bigot. How about a nice big sign out front "We discriminate against Gays".

Like you wear a sign saying I discriminate against religion....amirite?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

I've sold services to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I told the (not-gay and not that liberal) workers there that didn't want to deal with them "Their money is just as good as someone else's, don't like what they do, use your bonus to donate to someone to counteract what they do".

It would be really hypocritical if I demanded non-discrimination from others while I discriminated against others.

Besides, its AGAINST the law to discriminate against people because of their religion. I'd argue that given that its illegal to discriminate against people because they are fundamentalists, then it should also be illegal (as it is in many jurisdictions, including Oregon) for fundamentalists to discriminate against persons because of their sexual orientation. All we ask for is the exact same protection under the law that our opponents enjoy currently.

That's great but not making a gay cake isn't discrimination. I have no problem with protecting employees from being fired because they're straight or gay and federal fair housing laws should, if they don't, protect straight and gays alike. But you militant gays need to pick your battles a little better. Is this the hill you want to die on? A cake? Really? Grow Up.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

"We reserve the right to refuse service"

I remember seeing this sign in a lot of businesses. Banks don't serve people without money. Many restaurants refuse to serve people without shoes and shirts. I could go on. But you should get the point by now...

(02-04-2013 07:13 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 07:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 06:55 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 06:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 05:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because there's no power or money in your solution


You keep ignoring my point, Tom, and focusing on THIS point.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that a wedding cake should be a Federal issue? We're not REALLY talking about discrimination here and you know it. I can't walk into a baker and force him to make something he doesn't choose to make any more than I can walk into a restaurant, even one that does special requests and force them to cook me a kosher meal.


No discrimination.

The "self-importance" of the entire class of "discriminated" people is an insult to those who DIED for your rights.... and I'm sure now that I've insulted you, you'll find the time to address the real issue here.

The baker can bake things and you can buy them. He has clearly stated that they can buy his stuff. They asked for a custom cake and he declined to share his "art" in that way. Your point is that he can't make something and then not sell it to them. THAT is what the federal law says. That isn't alleged here.

I greatly appreciate your perspective, Tom, and I understand that not everyone on here does... but you're barking up the wrong tree with this. People have a right to be bigots in this country. I'll agree wholeheartedly with you that it is short-sighted... I mean seriously... who plans better weddings than gay people?? but the law doesn't mean what you keep trying to say it means.

So where do you draw the line? Seeing as it is obviously illegal for the baker to refuse to provide services (that he provides for other couples) to an interracial couple, then why should that person be allowed to discriminate against Gay persons?

This case, while kind of stupid (the town is in Multinomah County Oregon - one of the most liberal counties in America), the issue isn't stupid in other respects.

I'll give you an example. Some friends of mine ended up renting a facility for a wedding. After time had passed (and the rentals at alternate facilities went up or became unavailable), the venue abruptly decided to cancel the rental because they couple is Gay. I think in a case like that, that the venue should be held to make the couple whole, either by honoring the contract or by providing a suitable venue at the same price (and suitable is to be at the approval of the couple).

People refuse to rent to Gay men or Lesbians. That should be as illegal as it would be if someone refused to rent to Black persons.

In short, this particular case is stupid. The reason why these laws exist is not.

Besides, if some religious moron wants to discriminate, he should have to put that into all signage, marketing, and advertising in a prominent place so that people don't waste their time trying to deal with some bigot. How about a nice big sign out front "We discriminate against Gays".

Like you wear a sign saying I discriminate against religion....amirite?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

I've sold services to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I told the (not-gay and not that liberal) workers there that didn't want to deal with them "Their money is just as good as someone else's, don't like what they do, use your bonus to donate to someone to counteract what they do".

It would be really hypocritical if I demanded non-discrimination from others while I discriminated against others.

Besides, its AGAINST the law to discriminate against people because of their religion. I'd argue that given that its illegal to discriminate against people because they are fundamentalists, then it should also be illegal (as it is in many jurisdictions, including Oregon) for fundamentalists to discriminate against persons because of their sexual orientation. All we ask for is the exact same protection under the law that our opponents enjoy currently.

That's great but not making a gay cake isn't discrimination. I have no problem with protecting employees from being fired because they're straight or gay and federal fair housing laws should, if they don't, protect straight and gays alike. But you militant gays need to pick your battles a little better. Is this the hill you want to die on? A cake? Really? Grow Up.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

You notice I don't post a lot of new threads in here. So the cases that end up getting posted here are all the outlier cases posted by anti-gays seeking to belittle discrimination laws.
What are the damages in this case anyway? 500 bucks plus court costs? Basically some baker broke the law and is going to have to pay for it. Well not really, some cray-cray Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell legal outfit will pay for it.

Not all these wedding cases are minor either.

The good news with this case is that the baker is going to have to deal with all the publicity around the case for about 2 years. Sure, they'll be a flurry of anti-gay bigots throwing them business in the next month or so, but as they always do, they'll find that business will largely dry up in the future because there are more people offended by discrimination than are attracted to discrimination.

But I support the Oregon law. Equal is equal.

I'd have made the cake. I've got kids to feed.