Bakery Fined $135K For Refusing Same-Sex Weddiing

Posted by | July 4, 2015 16:00 | Filed under: Politics


The owners of an Oregon bakery who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding in 2013, must pay $135,000 in damages, according to a final order issued by the Bureau of Labor and Industries on Thursday. It’s a privately owned business that is open to the public, therefore, discrimination is a violation of their…

(more…)

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

123 responses to Bakery Fined $135K For Refusing Same-Sex Weddiing

  1. whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 16:24

    thank you for the paying for their extended honeymoon.

  2. Mike July 4th, 2015 at 16:26

    Make em pay every dime

  3. GOP - Party of Neanderthals July 4th, 2015 at 16:45

    Should have read the fine print on that business permit they signed — the part about :DISCRIMINATION

    • Larry Schmitt July 4th, 2015 at 16:47

      They seem to think it doesn’t apply to them because they’re christians.

      • GOP - Party of Neanderthals July 4th, 2015 at 16:48

        ohh – the privileged class , got it . Not so privileged now

  4. Talkin_Truth July 4th, 2015 at 18:26

    Does anyone else think $135,000 seems excessive?

    The bakery deserves a penalty that stings, that’s for sure. They are blatantly and defiantly breaking the law.

    But, if this is a first time offence, should they be put out of business? I don’t think so.

    That being said, with crowd-funding, they are probably going to make money from their bigotry. So, I don’t feel too sorry for them.

    • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 18:44

      i don’t have a problem with the amount. and if they lost business it’s their own fault.

      • Talkin_Truth July 5th, 2015 at 01:49

        I’m not sure what the appropriate penalty is for discrimination. But this seems high. It’s purely a subjective call, I admit.

        • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 02:14

          high is the point. if it’s $3,500.00, what’s the message?

          • Talkin_Truth July 5th, 2015 at 02:28

            For me, personally, that would be a big hit. But, for these bakery people, I don’t know what the right number is.

            I’ve worked for small businesses and none of them had that kind of money around.

            • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 02:49

              then the businesses you worked for obviously didn’t take the chance or they were not ignorant racist, bigots, who put themselves in the position to lose their lively hoods right, by discriminating against the very people that pays their bills? the right number is always the highest number. don’t like the numbers, then treat people with respect. they are human beings.

            • Dwendt44 July 5th, 2015 at 13:31

              Depends on what you consider ‘small business’. According to the government, a small business is one that’s owned by less than 100 people. Therefore, Bectel and Koch Bros. are ‘small’ businesses.

    • Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2015 at 19:20

      If you believe that sexual orientation is primarily determined by genetics, and that gays and lesbians have little or no control over their behavior, then this verdict makes sense. But I have not seen the research that demonstrates how being gay is any less of a choice than being obese. We all know that genetics play a role in obesity, and a lot of obese people will tell you that they have little or no control over their eating behavior. Do we believe them?

      • Dwendt44 July 4th, 2015 at 20:23

        Maybe you haven’t looked hard enough.

        • Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2015 at 20:45

          If your viewpoint is based upon scientific research, then I would be interested in reading any studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals. Please tell me which studies you have read.

          • Dwendt44 July 5th, 2015 at 01:30

            Google is your friend. But you have to stay away from right wing web sites that are fact free much, if not most, of the time.
            I wasted 15 minutes digging up sites for you to read, Assuming you will. I haven’t read through all of them but I think I weeded out the duplicates.

            http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

            http://doctor.ndtv.com/photodetail/ndtv/page/1/id/7543/Understanding_homosexuality.html#talk

            http://www.humantruth.info/homosexuality.html

            http://scitechdaily.com/homosexuality-might-develop-in-the-womb-due-to-epigenetic-changes/

            • Talkin_Truth July 5th, 2015 at 01:47

              I’m having a hard time following your debate. Is Robert arguing that we should ban both obesity and homosexuality because they have health consequences?

              • jasperjava July 5th, 2015 at 03:28

                He’s arguing that discrimination is great, discrimination is the American Way.

                As a conservative, Robert M. Snyder is never happy unless he has someone to hate.

                • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 03:44

                  certainly sounds that way.

              • Dwendt44 July 5th, 2015 at 13:44

                True enough. That’s the problem when a argument or conversation is all over the map on a subject with plenty of side trips included.
                In my case just above, it was in response to Snyder making a comment about whether homosexuality was there at birth.
                As it is, sexual attraction and obesity are on a continuum, there are those that are just a bit overweight, and those that are truly huge. Sexual attraction is similar. Some have strong attractions to the same sex, while others may have only a slight attraction or even be bisexual, or in a few very rare cases, asexual.

            • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 02:45

              I will definitely read them tomorrow. (It’s 2am here right now.)

              I had a look at the first article you linked. It states that the degree of concordance was 66% between monozygotic (identical) twins and 30% for dizygotic (fraternal) twins.

              However, all but two of the male monozygotic twins were reared together. If they had all been reared apart, then the concordance could be attributed mainly to heredity. But since most were reared together, we cannot know the degree to which their common upbringing might have been responsible for their common sexual orientation.

              In the conclusion section, the article refers to a previous study of alcoholism in which the monozygotic and dizygotic concordances were 54% and 24%, respectively. This suggests that heredity is nearly as large a factor for alcoholism as it is for homosexuality.

              Most people today understand that heredity is a factor that predisposes some people to alcoholism. But society does not view heredity as a valid excuse for leading an alcoholic lifestyle. Doctors and public health officials frequently advise alcoholics to seek out help and get treatment. The underlying assumption is that people are capable of and responsible for controlling their behavior. A person can’t will himself to no longer be an alcoholic, but he can will himself to abstain from consuming alcohol.

              This is exactly the point that many Christians make. While they acknowledge that heredity may influence a person’s orientation, they also believe that homosexual behavior, like alcoholism, is harmful to the individual and/or society and needs to be avoided.
              Whether it truly is harmful is a separate issue that is very difficult to quantify. I am not trying to argue that point.

              My point is simply that if a person believes that alcoholism and homosexuality are equally harmful to the individual or to society, then the concordance data in this study would seem to suggest that heredity is just about as large a factor for alcoholism as it is for homosexuality.

            • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 14:52

              I have looked closely at the Hawaii and NIH links you provided, because they are presenting results from peer-reviewed research studies. The other articles appear to have been written by people who are not directly involved in the research, so I consider them to be somewhat less reliable sources.

              The NIH paper provides much food for thought. Over thirty years ago, while attending college, I took a Neuroscience elective. In that class we learned that if a pregnant rat became stressed, her adrenal gland secreted a different combination of hormones, and that this could affect the sexual orientation of her offspring. I was under the impression that this research was later disproved, but the NIH paper you linked seems to reinforce the concept that maternal stress can alter the sexual orientation of the offspring.

              When 200 men were asked whether their mothers had experienced stressful events while carrying them, “severely stressful events were recalled by 68% of homosexual men, and by 40% of bisexual men, but by only 6% of heterosexual men”.
              It kind of makes you wonder what Gloria Vanderbilt was going through while she was carrying Anderson Cooper. And it raises the question of whether pregnant women who find themselves in severely stressful situations should be encouraged to take measures to reduce their stress levels. Maybe taking a leave of absence from work is just as important before the birth as it is after the birth. Pregnant women are routinely advised to avoid alcohol for the sake of the fetus. Perhaps it is just as important for pregnant women to avoid severe stress if at all possible.

      • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 22:29

        I like your approach but I disagree with your conclusion.

        • Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2015 at 23:19

          Some quick Google searches provided these statistics:

          Percent of US population that is gay, lesbian, or bisexual: 3%
          Percent of US population that is obese: 35%

          It appears that obesity is about eleven times more common than LGBT. If you talk with people who are obese, many will tell you that they do not feel as if they have a choice. For them the urge to consume calories is relentless, and they do not believe that they have the power to resist it.

          But the medical community and public health officials are constantly advising overweight and obese people to change their behavior. Doctors and scientists believe that obesity is harmful to the individual and imposes costs on society. While doctors and scientists freely acknowledge that dietary behaviors are very difficult to change, they also believe that it is worth the effort.

          Under no circumstances would a responsible doctor or scientist support or facilitate a celebration of obesity.

          The fact that many people are genetically predisposed to obesity does not mean that an individual should “do what comes naturally” and “follow their instincts” by eating everything in sight. Instead, doctors encourage people to fight those natural tendencies, for the sake of the individual and also for the sake of society. (e.g. reducing healthcare costs due to obesity)

          If a Christian baker sincerely believes that homosexuality is harmful to the individual or to society, asking them to facilitate a gay wedding is like asking a doctor to facilitate a celebration of obesity. Denying them the right to express concerns about homosexuality is like denying a doctor the right to express concerns about obesity.

          In both cases, a person refuses to endorse or facilitate person’s behavior. In both cases, the behavior is influenced by genetics, and probably influenced by many other factors such as early childhood experiences and cultural factors. We cannot assume that the baker is any less knowledgeable than the doctor. For all we know, the baker might have a PhD in Psychology.

          It is an unfortunate fact of human existence that some of our strongest instincts must be resisted for the good of the individual and the good of society. We do not encourage obese people to do what comes naturally. We encourage them to do what is healthy. Many obese people will say “It is none of your business how we live our lives.”. They argue that the government has no business regulating school lunches or soft drink sizes.

          Mayor Bloomberg and the Dept. of Agriculture think that obesity is unhealthy, so they keep trying to regulate soft drink sizes and school lunches. The Christian baker thinks that homosexuality is unhealthy, so they refuse to implicitly endorse it by baking a gay-themed cake.

          Personally, I take a libertarian view of these things. I think that people’s concerns about obesity and homosexuality are both overblown. There has been very little success in changing any of these behaviors. Yet Mayor Bloomberg and the Christian baker seem to think that they have a responsibility for helping other people to stop engaging in behavior that they believe to be harmful.

          The only difference is that the obesity advocates have not yet convinced the American public that nobody chooses to be obese and that obesity should be celebrated. Give it time…

          • Talkin_Truth July 5th, 2015 at 01:34

            >> But the medical community and public health officials are constantly advising overweight and obese people to change their behavior.

            And they are doing the same about HIV. But this using condoms and getting tested… not changing your sexual orientation.

      • jasperjava July 4th, 2015 at 23:25

        People shouldn’t be discriminated against for being obese, either.

        What would you say if a cake shop refused to bake a cake for a customer, saying, “forget it, you’re too fat. Eat a carrot instead.”

        • Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2015 at 23:27

          “What would you say if a cake shop refused to bake a cake for a customer”

          What did you say when Mayor Bloomberg tried to regulate soft drink sizes? What do you think of Michele Obama’s efforts to change the diets of school children?

          Aren’t they saying, in effect, “forget it, you’re too fat. Eat a carrot instead.”?

          • jasperjava July 4th, 2015 at 23:32

            Encouraging healthy habits is not discrimination.

            Even if you’re an ignorant anti-gay bigot who somehow believes that being gay is “unhealthy” – without any scientific basis whatsoever – that still doesn’t give you the right to discriminate.

            • Robert M. Snyder July 4th, 2015 at 23:44

              Without any scientific basis whatsoever?

              According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control):

              “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.”

              http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

              We all know that obesity entails increased health risks. The above data indicate that male-on-male sexual encounters also entail increased health risks. Some people like to go scuba diving or skydiving. All of these activities carry significant risks.

              I think people should be free to make their own choices, but I also believe that other people should be free to express their concerns about these behaviors, and not be compelled to endorse or facilitate them. I say “Do whatever you want, but don’t ask me to endorse it or facilitate it.”.

              • jasperjava July 5th, 2015 at 03:17

                Baking somebody a cake is not endorsing or facilitating anything sexual, unless you’re into something kinky.

                Besides, this wedding was for two women, so your HIV crap doesn’t apply. Even if there was any validity to it, it’s not the job of the baker to be concerned with what people do in their bedrooms. Their job is to bake cakes. It doesn’t matter what race, religion, or sexual orientation the customer has.

                Even if there was a real medical reason to be concerned. Suppose a diabetic walked in and ordered a cake. Is it the baker’s job to ask for medical records, the blood test results, whether the diabetic intends to eat the whole thing herself? No. Their job is to bake the damn cake. They are not allowed to discriminate against ANYONE.

                I’m not surprised that you don’t understand this. To conservatives, the right to hate is the most cherished right of all. Without hate, conservatives would have nothing to live for. Hate gives their sick, twisted, empty lives a little shred if meaning.

                • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 03:28

                  Just stop with the silly hate theories and stick to the arguments.

                  I happen to own a software business. I get to decide what products and services I wish to offer. If someone asks me to build a white supremacist website, I am going to refuse. No question about it. Are you telling me that I don’t have the right to refuse?

                  Making websites is like making cakes. There is almost always some kind of message involved. If you can force me to print your message, then I no longer have freedom of speech. Because the freedom to say what you believe includes the freedom to NOT say things that you do NOT believe.

                  • jasperjava July 5th, 2015 at 03:43

                    White supremacists are offensive and hateful.

                    A couple wanting to get married is an act of love.

                    Objecting to a couple just because of their sex is hateful, discriminatory and offensive. It’s the bakery owners who are acting like white supremacists.

                    Can the bakery owners refuse to bake a cake for a divorcee who is remarrying? Can they refuse a mixed-race couple? Can they object to people of different religions getting married? Can they tell the bride, “you shouldn’t marry that guy, he’s too old for you”? No. It’s none of their damn business to tell two consenting adults who they should or should not marry. Same thing goes if it’s two women or two men.

                    Anyone who would equate Neo-Nazis with ordinary folks who just want a cake for their wedding has serious moral issues.

                    • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 03:58

                      Can the bakery owners refuse to bake a cake for a divorcee who is remarrying?
                      Yes.

                      Can they refuse a mixed-race couple?
                      No, because nobody chooses their race.

                      Can they object to people of different religions getting married?
                      Yes.

                      Can they tell the bride, “you shouldn’t marry that guy, he’s too old for you”?
                      Yes.

                      Can a liberal newspaper refuse to run conservative ads? Yes.
                      Can an organic food store refuse to sell nonorganic foods? Yes.
                      Can a yoga instructor kick out someone who has body odor? Yes.

                      You are allowed to say and do what you want. But you don’t get to tell me what to say or do. I can’t treat you differently because of your race, gender, or other factors beyond your control. But getting married is a behavior, not a physical attribute of a person. If you don’t see the distinction, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

                    • jasperjava July 5th, 2015 at 04:12

                      Then by your own definition you shouldn’t object to bakers who discriminate against Black people or mixed-race couples, because marriage is a behavior. A racist bigot could just claim that they object to the behavior, not their race.

                      Sounds like you desperately want to defend bigotry, so you’re right, there’s no point in further discussion.

                    • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 04:30

                      “A racist bigot could just claim that they object to the behavior, not their race.”
                      No, they couldn’t. If they accept straight marriage, they have to accept it regardless of race. And if they reject gay marriage, they have to reject it regardless of race. It is absolutely clear that people have no control over their race. But it is not absolutely clear that people have no control over their sexuality. They are not in the same category.

              • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 16:08

                Being black increases the health risk of getting sickle-cell anemia. Being a child increases your risk of childhood diseases. Being stupid increases your health risk from fireworks. Being pale increases your health risk from exposure to the sun. Are you also saying that “health” should allow discrimination against blacks, whites, children, the stupid?

          • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 23:34

            Mrs. Obama didn’t try to change the diet of school kids. she introduced other alternatives. my GOD that’s such a bad thing to do now isn’t it? that’s nothing like what bloomberg was attempting to do. you’re not even in the same ball park. aside from that, changing the menu on school lunches was something that was being done long before Obama became president. you people really seem to forget about that.

          • William July 5th, 2015 at 19:32

            Gluttony is one of the deadly sins. Bloomberg and the first lady are just exercising their “religious freedoms”

      • Talkin_Truth July 5th, 2015 at 01:31

        >> If you believe that sexual orientation is primarily determined by
        genetics, and that gays and lesbians have little or no control over
        their behavior, then this verdict makes sense.

        I have long believed that sexual orientation a very personal combination of “nature and nurture.” The science is still emerging but I think it is proving me right.

        But, to be clear, it’s not a choice. At least not a simple one.

        • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 03:06

          I also believe that orientation is not a choice for most people. But neither is alcoholism. People can’t usually will themselves to no longer be gay or to no longer be an alcoholic. But people can certainly will themselves to avoid consuming alcohol or to avoid hooking up with people of the same sex. People are responsible for their behaviors.

          The original blog post was about a bakery that was fined for refusing to implicitly endorse homosexual behavior (by decorating a cake with a gay theme). I believe that the bakery had every right to refuse that request, and I also believe that people have every right to criticize and boycott the bakery. Nobody should ever be forced to endorse or facilitate a behavior of which they disapprove.

          If somebody walks in and asks for a cake that contains the N word, or the C word, or any other words, phrases, or messages that the bakery finds offensive, they should have the right to refuse. One person’s freedom to speak and act as they please does not give them the right to compel other people to speak and act in the same ways. Newspapers and television networks routinely refuse to print content that they deem offensive. Why shouldn’t bakers have the same right?

          • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 04:36

            RIdiculous. Cakes are inanimate objects, and so are incapable of endorsing anything. And the bakers aren’t endorsing homosexual behaviour anymore than the maker of the pressure cooker endorsed Tsarnaev. Than Glock endorsed Dylann Roof.

            The law says you cannot discriminate against protected classes. Bigots are not a protected class, nor are the crude. There is no religious exemption for a public business from antidiscrimination laws. Crimes have consequences, repercussions. To say that it is “a First Amendment” issue is extremely disingenuous. They have a right to free speech. They can scream from the mountaintop about how their GAWD hates the gayz and they are devout hateful drones. But the BUSINESS has certain rules that they have to follow. The BUSINESS was fined. They own the business, they made a business decision contrary to law, the fine ultimately devolves to them. But THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE INTACT as individuals.

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 04:40

              Are you equally upset that Walmart forbids the baking of a cake that has the Confederate flag on it, then? After all, cakes are just inanimate objects.

              Are you upset that Walmart forbids the Confederate flag, but allows an ISIS flag design on their cakes?

              I’m not upset at all, but that’s because I believe in a business’s right to choose what they want to do.

              • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 04:42

                The Confederate flag is not protected by anti-discrimination laws. Geez, the things that fly by some people…

                • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 04:44

                  That’s not what I was arguing. You said that a cake is an inanimate object, incapable of endorsing anything. Therefore, a cake that has a confederate flag design is not capable of endorsing the confederate flag, so there should be no issue, just like there should be no issue in making a cake that has 2 females at the top of it.

                  • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 04:52

                    But there is NO LAW that says that you must treat bigots equally. The flag is effectively “protected” in S.C., but that really doesn’t apply. Show me the law that says you must treat bigots or the deluded equally in the cake wars, then it will be vaguely analogous. If you only refuse to bake Confederate cakes for gays, you are violating the law. If you refuse to provide Confederate cakes (with the wonderful smell of defeat) to EVERYBODY, you are not violating the law. See how easy that is?

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 04:53

                      So what you are asking for is a privileged class, based on the history of intolerance for these individuals? If that’s the case, it is easy to see how this would inevitably be abused.

                      Also, refusing to make a cake with two males or two females on the top for everybody also falls into your argument.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 04:58

                      You know you are just whining? You are whining that businesses don’t get to discriminate. I understand. You are a libertarian. But you property rights are not the only, nor the paramount consideration. They broke the law. They got fined. Happens even to libertarians who break the law. You may own the car, but you still can’t legally drive over the speed limit.

                      It’s real simple. Breaking the law is bad, and you might no like what results. If you cannot follow the law, cannot fulfill the requirements OF a business, you shouldn’t be in business.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 05:00

                      I’m not arguing legalities. I’ve stated as much above. I’m arguing your philosophy. I believe I found a flaw in your philosophy. Do you? If so, you can state as much. If not, then you have some defending to do.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 05:07

                      You need to learn context. I was replying to someone who said that “a bakery… was fined for refusing to implicitly endorse homosexual behavior.” I stated that baking the cake wasn’t endorsing homosexual behaviour. I stated that the CAKE wasn’t capable either. And you apparently couldn’t stand that and had to go to great lengths to somehow prove that there was a flaw in my “philosophy.” I wasn’t espousing a philosophy, I was pointing out that these bakers were breaking the law (a significant issue) and were not implicitly endorsing anything. Might wanna refresh your memory on what “philosophy” is. Wasn’t covering existential issues, but entirely prosaic ones.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 05:09

                      Philosophy covers all issues. Anyways, do you now recant that cakes, despite being an inanimate object, ARE, in fact, capable of endorsing things?

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 05:18

                      I don’t recant.

                      Endorse – verb: declare one’s public approval or support of…

                      Can the cake change what’s written on it of it’s own volition? If not, then they are not declaring “one’s public approval or support of.”

                      You are really reaching, and for what? You want to discuss it further, provide evidence that cakes are sentient enough to make ANY choice. Otherwise you are flogging a dead cake. Public approval or support requires cognition. The cake wears what the BAKER or DECORATOR puts on it. If you can prove otherwise, feel free. Short of that, you can talk to yourself because you are effectively trying to argue that baked goods have intelligence. That they can form opinions, make decisions, make declarations. We’re not in Kansas anymore…

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 05:22

                      I don’t have to prove anything. I just have to disprove your logic. Since cakes can not endorse anything, if you’re going to be intellectually consistent, you should be against the banning of the Confederate Flag on Walmart cakes.

                      Some mod said my philosophy sucks in this very thread. Other people have called me liar, thief, racist, homophobe, sexist, and a plethora of other insults (none of which have ever been attempted to be proven, despite the numerous challenges). But whatever I am, and whatever I’m not, at least I’m intellectually consistent.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 05:38

                      You don’t have to prove anything. You haven’t proven anything yet. You imply cakes have cognition and that disproves something? Your sanity, perhaps. If refusing to bake Confederate cakes were against the law, I would be against it. Doesn’t require thinking that cakes have souls, that they should vote.

                      You are intellectually consistent. You once in a while say something that’s sensible, and then turn right around and post drivel. False equivalencies, specious arguments, data sans context to imply connections to unrelated things, a childish black and white perspective. You are consistent in adherence to libertarian “philosphy”… “I got mine, f*ck you.” You are oblivious to nuance, degrees, and even history and context.

                      It’s like arguing with a teenager absolutely SURE that they know all the answers to life. And frankly, it’s usually unpleasant. You have a pleasant day in your two-tone world.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 05:50

                      I’m not out to prove anything. I’m out to test your ideas. At one point, while Socrates was asking an individual what he thought happiness was, without using the word happiness, and proving how his thoughts were wrong, the individual got angry and shouted, “Why don’t YOU tell ME, then?” To which he responded, “Who said I had the answer. I’m just questioning yours.”

                      Never said cakes had souls. Never said signs have souls either, although the Westboro Baptist Church uses signs to convey their endorsed beliefs.

                      Please prove how I’m intellectually inconsistent, so I may become more intellectually consistent.
                      Please post my false equivalencies, specious arguments, and data sans (since I pretty consistently say “Correlation does not equal causation.”

                      Please show me where, “Personal Responsibility,” equates into, “I got mine, f*ck you.”

                      If I’m wrong about my ideas, you have only to prove your own to get me to change mine.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 06:03

                      Christ on a crutch, buddy, do you even listen to yourself? Your “testing” my “ideas?”

                      ” Since cakes can not endorse anything, if you’re going to be intellectually consistent, you should be against the banning of the Confederate Flag on Walmart cakes.”

                      You are saying that some quality or property of an inanimate object requires my taking a certain perspective on Walmart’s decision making. WTF, dude? This is an intellectual argument? This is a valid test of anything other than your ability to use inane analogies?
                      C’mon, show me you can think. Show me how Confederate flags and human beings are equal. Objectively equal. All you have brought forth so far is puerile, illogical, irrational, irrelevant, and asinine. If you can’t do better, you really aren’t worth the time.

                      Cakes can’t think, so you gotta be pissed at Walmart…

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 06:07

                      I already said I wasn’t angry at Walmart. They are a business, and can do what they like (which is why I said I’m intellectually consistent). I’m also not upset about the fine, because the business broke the law AND doxxed people. Am I ok with the law? No, but I wouldn’t set up shop in an area where I wasn’t ok with the law.

                      Cakes can be used the same way that signs can. Which means they can be used to endorse ideologies and beliefs.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 06:23

                      “they can be used to endorse ideologies and beliefs.”

                      Exactly, though you have been arguing me about it for quite a while. The cake does not, of it’s own volition, endorse diddly. They are USED by HUMANS. Yet you argue that somehow requires me to have a particular view of a non-discriminatory decision by a business.

                      “Since cakes can not endorse anything, if you’re going to be intellectually consistent, you should be against the banning of the Confederate Flag on Walmart cakes.”

                      Remember that? Remember when I said that I would be against Walmart’s decision IF IT WERE AGAINST THE LAW TO CATER TO CIVIL WAR FETISHISTS AND RACISTS? I’ve been talking about actual law, and the fact that neither baker nor the cake were endorsing homosexual behavior.

                      You better keep trying, because you are STILL arguing about nothing but your “it’s my business so I can do what I want” perspective. Reality disproves that, as evidenced by the fine these bakers incurred. All of this is because you think it was so horrible for me to point out that the cake couldn’t endorse homosexual behavior. Facts are annoying, I know… Cakes are not able to endorse anything without human intervention.

                      “I already said I wasn’t angry at Walmart.”

                      “…you should be against the banning of the Confederate Flag on Walmart cakes.”

                      You said you weren’t, but I should be?

                      You really aren’t even trying. You need to dazzle me with your brilliance because you are boring me with your bullshite.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 06:34

                      Yes, but the making and use of the cake endorses diddly, and people should have the right to opt out of endorsing something they don’t want to endorse. And baking a cake for a gay wedding would be, in fact, endorsing said wedding.

                      You say that reality contradicts that, as though the reality of things are the way things should be. Reality states that the US has a death penalty. Doesn’t mean that there should be.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 06:46

                      They have the right to their beliefs. They don’t have the right to operate the business in ways contrary to the law. If you don’t want to follow the rules of the road, you have the right to get the hell off the road. Society in Oregon has decided that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. They refused to provide a service based on sexual orientation. They committed a crime. They received a fine. The law did not have a religious or conscientious objection loophole.

                      You don’t like antidiscrimination laws. I get that. Society disagrees. You live within the society. You can accept it or whine about it. You choose to whine.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 06:56

                      “Society disagrees.”
                      Society is not a hive mind. Plenty of people disagree with that notion, and with good reason. As for whining about it, even if I was, then why not? Enough people whining loudly enough apparently has the potential to make/change laws. You could argue that feminism started off as whining, and look how far it has come.

                      Perhaps you should try to change the minds of the opposition, rather than silencing them.

                  • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 04:54

                    Gays are a protected class in the state of Oregon, they cannot refuse their business for this specific reason. The bakery provides wedding cakes, that’s the service they provide, if they also provided cakes with hate messages to other customers and then refused to provide one to the KKK, then you might have an argument but that’s not the case here.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 04:55

                      I wasn’t arguing the Law of Oregon, I was arguing his argument that cakes are incapable of endorsing anything.

                      I’ve already stated numerous times that if you are going to open a business in the area, you had better not believe that you are exempt from the laws you don’t like. I’m not arguing legality; I’m arguing philosophy.

                    • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 05:01

                      Well, yours sucks.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 05:03

                      Actually, I haven’t stated my philosophy. I’ve only argued his.

            • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 04:41

              Newspapers are businesses. A newspaper is an inanimate object. Is the New York Times legally required to run advertisements that it finds objectionable?

              • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 04:47

                You are talking about an entirely different kind of business. You are talking an entirely different issue. The FINE was for DISCRIMINATION. They broke the LAW. Is there a law that says that newspapers have to treat all ads equally? Are ads really comparable to people? If you can show where there is a law that says that all advertisement must be accepted, or at least treated equally, then maybe you have a prosthetic leg to stand on.

                • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 13:40

                  Suppose your next-door neighbor is a serial wife-beater who is constantly insulting his overweight wife (let’s call her Marcia) and making her feel small. You frequently see her with cuts and bruises on her face and arms. The point here is that your neighbor is engaging in an activity that you believe to be harmful to others.

                  Now suppose that neighbor walks into your bakery and orders a cake that says “Happy birthday Marcia, you fat, ugly, stupid b*tch.”.
                  Suppose that you go ahead and bake the cake, and then, on her birthday, Marcia commits suicide. How are Marcia’s children and relatives going to feel when they walk into that house and see that cake on the table? Of course they would blame the husband. But wouldn’t they also ask “Who is the spineless jerk who agreed to bake that cake?”.

                  The point is that if someone is paying a business to print messages, even short messages, we don’t expect the business owner to print EVERY possible message. In fact most people would expect them to REFUSE certain messages. The bakery should have the same editorial discretion as the New York Times.

                  The New York Times’ motto used to be “All the news that’s fit to print.”. The implication is that some things are not fit to print. And who decides what is fit to print? At the New York Times, the editor decides. In a bakery, the store owner decides.

          • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 04:50

            No one indicated it had a gay theme, only that it was for a same-sex wedding. Since a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes does not offer cakes with hate messages to any customer, they are not discriminating when they refuse the business of the KKK. However, they are in the business of providing wedding cakes, therefore they cannot refuse business based on a belief, specifically one of a protected class and gays are a protected class for commercial purposes in the state of Oregon.

            • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 13:23

              If existing law is the basis for deciding what is morally right, then slavery was morally right in the early 1800’s.

              • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 13:31

                The existing law, the 14th amendment is for equality, not morality. Morality applies only in the sense that discrimination is wrong, but that’s not the basis for the law.

                • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 13:46

                  Would you ever break a law in order to do the right thing? If so, then you are acknowledging that sometimes morality and the law are in conflict, and that morality is more important than strict compliance with the law.

                  • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 14:14

                    Yes, I would break the law in order to do the right thing. I’m speaking of keeping a child safe from abuse, hiding an abused spouse, withhold evidence that would create unreasonable circumstances – life and death stuff. I would also understand my actions have consequences that I would accept responsibility for.

                    But that is not the situation here, the laws were clear and they chose, long before this couple came into this bakery they knew it could happen – they had choices, they could have sold the business or hired a manager to oversee the day to day work. They could have made it a private club, they could have began offering items other than wedding cakes. Tons of choices but this is the one they chose, so now they can reap the consequences.

    • The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 22:28

      ABSOLUTELY, WAY TOO MUCH !

    • Budda July 5th, 2015 at 11:16

      The fine was for more than just refusing to bake a cake, it was for their vendictiveness in persuing the issue.

  5. allison1050 July 4th, 2015 at 20:58

    I guess their gawd told them that it’s alright to discriminate but my gawd said green was green when I used to have a small business. I mean really who cares I didn’t and never have plus it was never my personal business.

  6. The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 22:24

    All though I totally disagree with the owners of the bakery, a $135K fine is just over the Flipping Wall. That is WRONG !

    • jasperjava July 4th, 2015 at 23:21

      You’re right: it should have been ten times more.

      • whatthe46 July 4th, 2015 at 23:21

        i think so too. clear messages.

      • The Original Just Me July 5th, 2015 at 01:56

        If the fine was less but still of substance, the bakery people would have paid it grudgingly . But as it is, they will play the sympathy card and all the Nut Cases will flood them with monetary donations. Far more than exceeding the fine. What a money maker for the bakery.

        • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 02:42

          after taxes, after a fine, after the settlement, after paying off creditors, it might be mere 1000’s they are left with.

  7. The Original Just Me July 4th, 2015 at 22:32

    Okay. I’ve cooled down a bit, This will only give the owners of the bakery an opertunity

  8. labman57 July 4th, 2015 at 23:01

    The discriminatory conduct of the bakery owners is only part of the issue — their blatant act of retribution against the plaintiffs, including posting their address online — is also shameful and may have contributed to the magnitude of the monetary penalty.

    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 00:25

      I agree with you completely. I believe that, unless a business is owned by the public (say your local utility office), owners have the right to turn people away for literally any reason, as it is the owner who will face all the social consequences of doing so (including loss of business).

      That said, they had absolutely NO right to give away personal information without explicit permission from the owners of said information, and I feel that the fine for doing so is just. Had they not done this, I would say that it is an infringement on the owner’s beliefs (that said, you should be aware of the laws in place wherever you set up shop, and by setting up shop there, you understand that you will need to follow said laws, even if they do infringe on your beliefs).

      • Talkin_Truth July 5th, 2015 at 02:32

        >> I believe that, unless a business is owned by the public (say your
        local utility office), owners have the right to turn people away for
        literally any reason

        Clearly, that’s not true in Oregon!

        I’m no legal expert but it been repeatedly reported that businesses open for public accommodation can’t discriminate against protected classes of people.

        • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 02:35

          You may also note that I said that any business that sets up shop should be familiar with the local laws in the area. If they do not like the laws, then they are free to go elsewhere.

          • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 02:40

            you can refuse business in every state for serving those who, refuse to wear shoes, shirts, clothes, etc. that’s not a protected class. a drunktard is not a protected class. someone entering your buisness with masks on their faces, is not a protected class. got it?

            • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 02:53

              In my state, a sign stating “We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason,” is all that you need. It varies from state to state, and while I would never tell someone where to set up shop, I wouldn’t set up shop in a place that does not allow me to refuse service to any individual, and not have to give a reason why. They can infer why if they wish.

              They set up shop in Oregon, and the laws there do not permit such an action, and there isn’t a single place on earth that allows you to distribute information about someone without that person’s consent. If it were me, I never would have set up shop expecting to be exempted from the law, and would never have doxxed anyone.

              It was their own stupidity that got them in this mess, and they are personally responsible for it, so I’m completely fine with how things turned out.

              • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 03:20

                “We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason,” is all that you need.” no it’s not. if that were the case, then you could refuse the right to provide service to me. i’m black, but brown, i’m brown, but sicilian, i’m sicilian, but native, i’m native but french, i am a new orleanian. this is who i am! i am a beautiful mixture of culture that i embrace with love. I AM MY OWN GUMBO. do you, would you, refuse service to me? what have i done to you? how have i harmed you? how does my existence, effect you and yours?

                • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 03:26

                  I wouldn’t refuse service to anyone that wasn’t doing more harm than good to my business, but then, I’m not everyone. When you are forcing people to do business in a way that they do not wish to do business, then you should be responsible for all the risks involved. I would rather my businesses operate independently.

                  • whatthe46 July 5th, 2015 at 03:39

                    ‘splain that one more time. ’cause i’m like what?

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 03:49

                      Simple, you can not mandate the way a business should be run (exempting universal goods, such as ecological health) unless you are willing to take part in the losses that the business sustains.

                      One example would be the exact opposite of what we are arguing. What if a government demanded that you did not do business with black men, for whatever implausible reason? You want to do business with them, they want to do business with you, but the government forbids it. As a result of following this rule, at the end of your quarter, you realize you are running at a loss. It isn’t your fault, it isn’t any races’ fault, it’s the government’s fault. Would it not be fair to declare that since the government mandated how you should run your business, that they compensate you for the loss of business? Of course it is.

                      But that works both ways. If you want to refuse service to blacks, if the government FORCES you to cater to them, then they, too, should share the burden of whatever losses come about because of that.

                      Whereas, if you give the business the freedom to choose who they want to do business with, then all the repercussions are on them. They can refuse blacks, whites, gays, Jews, Christians; whatever. Then people can vote with their wallets, and put the racist owner out of business. Or he can thrive, depending on the people (like Louis Vuitton’s horrible customer service being seen as a “perk” for their horridly expensive purses.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 04:21

                      ” you can not mandate the way a business should be run (exempting universal goods, such as ecological health) unless you are willing to take part in the losses that the business sustains.:

                      Actually, you can mandate the way a business should be run. You are not allowed to defraud customers, for instance. That’s pretty much a mandate – fraud is specifically prohibited in all 50 states. You have safety standards you are required to follow. You have to pay appropriate taxes, fees, etc. in order to be open. You have limits on how and when you can dun customers for overdue bills. You may be limited by local ordinances to only selling certain merchandise or only on certain days. You can’t legally bribe people. You have to follow certain rules about where you can build a store, what is required within your store (like sprinklers,) maximum capacity, number of exits, and so on.

                      Seems like you CAN mandate the way a business should run. Welcome to the real world. Property rights do not ACTUALLY trump other rights. I realize that “libertarians” think that if it’s mine, I can do what I want with it. But that is not an enumerated nor an absolute right.

                    • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 04:22

                      Bullshit. We don’t live in some post-apocalyptic capitalist state, not only can the government require evenly applied regulations, like anti-discrimination but as a civilised nation is obligated to ensure it’s citizens receive fair treatment. It’s 2015 in the US, not lord or the flies or some start-up civilzation.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 04:27

                      Why is capitalism post-apocalyptic? And where did I say that the government couldn’t require regulations, such as environmental and worker restrictions?

                      The fact that it’s 2015 means that the internet is around, and that people can become easily informed, making it all the easier to vote with their wallets if their personal beliefs are in conflict with the owner’s personal beliefs.

                      Of course, the universal goods, which can and should be owned by the people, have no such rights, nor should they. You can’t force a person to get their electricity through the city if the City Manager, City Council, or Mayor is openly racist, sexist, or anything else.

                    • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 04:30

                      Just your version of 2015 appears post-apocalyptic, and yes you can be forced to get your electricity through a specific provider/city/county – or be fined for not utilizing the grid.Are you sure you live on this planet?

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 04:34

                      This is why the publicly owned utilities have no right to demand the same treatment as the privately owned businesses.

                      I may have worded that poorly, so I’ll try again. A racist owns the only grocery store in town. You don’t HAVE to purchase groceries from that business (a right that I use myself, as a Walmart is the only grocery store in my town; I go out of town to do my grocery shopping).

                      But you don’t have the same options for water or electricity (or any other universal good), so the universal goods do not and should not have the same rights to be discriminatory.

                    • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 04:45

                      And neither should your racist owned Walmart.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 04:49

                      What you are arguing is called, “Pathological Altruism,” which I will gladly link the study for, but essentially boils down to the following three excerpts:

                      “Our eyes can be powerless against visual illusions, with our underlying neural machinery leading us to predictably erroneous conclusions about the size or shape of an object. In a similar fashion, our empathic feelings for others, coupled with a desire to be liked, parochial feelings for our in-group, emotional contagion, motivated reasoning, selective exposure, confirmation bias, discounting, allegiance bias, and even an egocentric belief that we know what is best for others, can lead us into a power and often irrational illusions of helping.”

                      “In other words, people’s own good intentions, coupled with a variety of cognitive biases, can sometimes blind them to the deleterious consequences of their actions. This dynamic of pathological altruism involves subjectively pro-social acts that are objectively anti-social.”

                      “Pathological altruism can be conceived in behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.”

                      Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_2/10408.full.pdf

                    • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 05:00

                      Everyone is driven by their own implicit bias, some have a harder time being objective than others this is exactly why we have Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education. You can’t make other’s see their behavior is wrong/harmful but you can force them to do what’s right.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 05:02

                      Yes, but what you are doing is trying to force your own preconceived notions down the throats of others by using the arm of the law to do so. This is where the Pathological Altruism argument comes into play.

                      I’m not arguing the law, as, at the moment, it is rather set in stone. I’m arguing philosophy. The philosophy that people are mostly good, and mostly intelligent, and that they can decide what to do for themselves. This does not end at the private businesses they own.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 05:54

                      “trying to force your own preconceived notions down the throats of others by using the arm of the law to do so”

                      Aren’t we cramming our preconceived notions about about murder down the throat of people who wanna kill! kill! kill!??? Aren’t we cramming our preconceived notions about the age of consent down the throat of pedophiles? Aren’t we cramming our preconceived notion about cheating little old ladies out of their life savings down the throat of con-men?

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 05:56

                      Keeping killers off the street is a universal good, unless you think locking up killers appears to be pro-social, but is, in actuality, anti-social.

                      Age of consent is always a blurry line, as even western civilizations have varying opinions. I’ve landed on, “adults are responsible for their own choices, and I will let society decide what an adult is.”

                      I’m not certain what you are referencing to the last point. Could you be more specific in what you mean, and give a reference?

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 06:05

                      Fraud

                      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 06:08

                      Oh, you’re talking about literal swindling? Of course not. The woman gave up her money (which was her property) in exchange for something, and did not receive what she was promised. Holding people to their promises isn’t “pathological altruism.” Did you read the excerpt that I posted? Not all altruism is pathological.

                    • bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 06:38

                      Ah, so being against discrimination is pathological. Quite the world view. Yeah, antidiscrimination laws are just like making you wear water-wings in the bathtub! Nanny state!

                      Your arguments are getting worse. Society can decide age of consent, but can’t decide other things cuz you don’t like them.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 06:50

                      You simply mocking an argument does not refute the argument.

                      If I had to pick an age of consent/age of adulthood, it would be age 25, as science has shown that is when the human brain stops developing. Of course, that would only leave women 5 years to find a mate and have children before 90% of their eggs are gone (on average), which is why the age of consent is a grey area to me. And yes, trampling on one person’s right to personal beliefs in order to enforce someone else’s personal beliefs is pathological altruism.

                      Rather than running to big daddy government and demanding him to make everything all better, a better solution would be to open up shop right next door, with a big sign that says, “Will take all orders! No exception” and run them out of business, while making yourself a profit.

                    • tracey marie July 5th, 2015 at 09:51

                      Bigotry and religion to exercise that bigotry is illegal. Just because you do not like it does not gove you the right to whine and claim victimhood.

                    • Dwendt44 July 5th, 2015 at 13:07

                      The age of consent in the Vatican is 14.

                    • tracey marie July 5th, 2015 at 09:49

                      Making bigotry against the law is for the universal good.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 18:49

                      Actually, what you are describing is Pathological Altruism.

                    • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 08:01

                      Yes, yes it does end at the private business they own. They can live any personal philosophy they choose until they open a business that provides a service to the public, then they are subject to rules governing businesses that expect to offer services to the public. Historically we know that most do not just operate in a fair and consistent manner. This is why we have minimum wage, child labor, and discrimination protection laws.

                    • TuMadre, Ph.D July 5th, 2015 at 18:55

                      Firstly, I apologize. Clearly, in places like Oregon, it DOES end at the businesses they own. I misspoke (it was the end of my day, and I was tired). I meant to say that it “Shouldn’t” end at the private businesses they own.

                    • tracey marie July 5th, 2015 at 09:47

                      straw man argument shows you know you are wrong.

    • Talkin_Truth July 5th, 2015 at 02:26

      >> their blatant act of retribution against the plaintiffs, including posting their address online — is also shameful

      I didn’t know that part of the story. I don’t know how much discretion the Bureau of Labor and Industry has but if this bakery family were being jerks, it could explain the maximum fine.

  9. CandideThirtythree July 5th, 2015 at 03:09

    She didn’t have any problem making a wedding cake for some good christian on his or her 7th wedding though did she?

    The fact that they cherry-pick which parts of their religion to adhere to is what bugs me about them so much. If they were oh so holy then maybe they should not be in the bakery business, maybe they should be monks or something but none of them are really that pious…until it suits them.

    • William July 5th, 2015 at 06:58

      Yeah…but ..it interferes with their religious freedom.

  10. tracey marie July 5th, 2015 at 09:32

    We are a secular nation of man’s laws that have to be obeyed, discrimination is illegal.

  11. booker25 July 5th, 2015 at 10:03

    The bakery is secular business, period end of story.

  12. Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 14:02

    I doubt the bakery has a habit of decorating cakes with hateful messages, they would be well within their rights to refuse to make the cake. (not to mention abusive partners are not a protected class) I want to know why the neighbor hasn’t gotten involved and helped this woman, called the police, assisted in getting her to a shelter.

    • Robert M. Snyder July 5th, 2015 at 14:32

      You agree that a baker is “well within their rights to refuse to make the cake” if that cake is going to be part of a something that is harmful to others. Some people believe that people who engage in same-sex behavior are hurting themselves and hurting society. You and I may disagree, but science will not resolve the issue, because we are talking about long-term, population-wide effects that are impossible study as isolated factors.

      Someone who believes that same-sex marriages harms society is in the same position as someone who believes that carbon emissions harm society. We are talking about long-term future effects caused by small changes happening now.

      I can totally understand why someone’s intuition might cause them to worry about the effects of CO2 emissions or the effects of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

      People who worry about carbon emissions often refuse to support, or actively oppose, activities that would lead to greater emissions. The baker is refusing to support (but not actively opposing) same-sex marriage.

      People who see no problem with carbon emissions say that a little bit of warming is not harmful, and might actually be a good thing. People who see no problem with same-sex marriage say that a little bit of homosexuality is not harmful, and might actually be a good thing.

      Science is great at answering questions about things that can be studied in isolation in a laboratory environment. The long-term effects of CO2 emissions or of same-sex marriage cannot be studied in isolation, so science has a hard time answering these questions. As a result, people factor in their gut feelings. If you sense that the earth’s climate is pretty stable, then you don’t worry too much about CO2. If you sense that our social fabric is pretty stable, then you don’t worry too much about same-sex marriage.

      But if you do worry about the climate or the social fabric, then you will not want to participate in activities that you believe to be threatening to the climate or to the social fabric. The question is whether government should compel a business owner to facilitate activities that they believe to be harmful.

      You have said that the baker should not be required to bake a cake for an abuser who will use it to humiliate his wife. I know people who really worry about how public acceptance and celebration of same-sex unions will affect children. And I know people who really worry about how burning fossil fuel will affect the climate.

      I don’t think the government should be in the business of punishing people for acting on their beliefs.

      • Carla Akins July 5th, 2015 at 15:19

        First, no – I do not agree that a baker is “well within their rights to refuse to make the cake” if that cake is going to be part of a something that is harmful to others.

        What I said was if the bakery offers a service or a product like wedding cakes, then they cannot refuse a wedding cake to a customer for the sole reason that the customer is gay. If you sell cakes to one engaged couple (all things being equal) you sell to all seeking your service, as it is a public retail service and bound by those laws.

        If a customer entered the same bakery and wanted a cake made with a hate message decorated on the cake, the bakery is well within their rights to say no, regardless of who the customer may be because the baker is not in the business of making “hate” cakes and picking and choosing whom to sell to. These are two different scenarios.

        You could not enter a Kosher deli and expect or demand a ham sandwich because they do not serve ham sandwiches to any customer. Just like the above example of the baker refusing to make a cake for an abuser. They don’t offer these services to any abuser customer so no discrimination exists.

        The government is not punishing them for their beliefs but their actions. They applied for and were awarded a commercial sales license, along with this license comes a responsibility to know, understand and follow the law, including discrimination laws.

        A public business offering a service or goods cannot hold a religious belief, it is a secular entity. The businesses services are only required to make the cake, not endorse the wedding. From the folks providing the venue, the linens, flowers, – the shop that sold them their wedding dresses are a part of this wedding, simply a vendor being paid for a job. It does not infringe upon their beliefs in any way, nor does it prevent them from practicing their faith. The analogies are simply not connected – climate change and how it’s handled will determine if we even leave a world behind for our children to live in. As far as children handling celebrations of marriages, my kids found the receptions fascinating and they loved going, but rarely was there any interest in the happy couple. I can’t imagine it would be any different in same-sex weddings. The effect? Of two loving people surrounded by family and friends that love them, celebrating the beginning of their lives together – sounds wonderful, which is just what children will think.

  13. bpollen July 5th, 2015 at 15:36

    You’re hypotheticals in no way invalidate the fine. The fact is, even though you don’t like it and are using ridiculous analogies to prove (what?) the fine was imposed legally. They weren’t fined because of the message on the cake, they chose to refuse BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. That’s a crime. Bakeries and newspapers are not analogous. If the newspaper refused to print something because of the SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the potential customer, THEY would be in violation of the law.

    Maybe you should be boo-hooing about this ruling in OREGON. Get them to change the law that the bakery violating. Your arguments here change nothing, and convince no one who already doesn’t think that discrimination is an acceptable business practice.

  14. AnthonyLook July 5th, 2015 at 19:12

    Baker’s right to discriminate, or florist or what ever business—–In our American Democracy, discrimination in the practice of good old American capitalism, is not a Constitutional protected behavior regardless of what religion you belong to.

Leave a Reply