A crock of a complaint and way overreach of govt. into our lives.

[carlimac]

OK, I know we've discussed this to death but here's the final word. They're in a period of reconciliation and may face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. WHO gets that money? If the lesbians get a dime of it there will be many more of these stupid complaints ahead.

Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple | Fox News

This just stinks to high heaven! And the thing that really makes me mad is that if these lesbians had come in asking for a birthday cake or perhaps some pies for a family reunion, I'm sure the business would have made them- no problem. They weren't discriminating against the women. They were discriminating against an event they don't believe in.

This is total phony balony!

Edited January 21, 2014 by carlimac

[yjacket]

I agree it is a crock; but it is the logical outcome of the current structure of our laws and mindset of our culture and unfortunately there is a significant probability that they will lose.

When we go away from property rights and negative rights to positive rights then this is the conclusion.

[HoosierGuy]

Good on the people of Oregon! Business that make money from the public should not discriminate.

Restaurants, bakeries, doctors and pharmacists, they need to keep their religion out of business and public dealings.

Those two women simply want to have a nice wedding like other people want. Why argue against them?

[Just_A_Guy]

Good on the people of Oregon! Business that make money from the public should not discriminate.

That would have a little more rhetorical punch if the specific people who were being discriminated against were somehow the reason that these businesses are making money. But they aren't. Part of refusing to do business with someone, is not taking their money.

Restaurants, bakeries, doctors and pharmacists, they need to keep their religion out of business and public dealings.

Check your religion at the church-house door. An interesting concept.

Let's have some fun with this, Hoosierguy: By your logic, then, a state can force a pharmaceutical company to produce drugs for lethal injection; and it can shanghai any doctor, nurse, or phlebotomist within its borders to administer the death penalty; and there's not a darned thing that the company or individual can do about it. If you don't like being an accessory to the death penalty then you should just get out of medicine--right?

Those two women simply want to have a nice wedding like other people want. Why argue against them?

Indeed. And part of that "wedding" is compelling society to accept that union as a virtuous and socially desirable thing. Anyone who refuses to do that, should be stripped of their livelihood.

It's not that we're controlling your religion, or your moral values. It's just that if you don't agree with us, we'll force you into economic exile and potential starvation until you acquiesce.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

I don't know what's wrong with me, but I agree with HoosierGuy on this one.

Any retail business with a storefront that offers goods and services to the public, should not be discriminating against anyone for religious, sexual orientation, race, political views, etc. The only discriminating factor there should be, is if you can afford the items or services you desire.

One's religious values should show up in the marketplace by simply providing a good service to all who enter their business location. Show pride in your work, and be a person (establishment) of your word. Stand behind your work and serve your customers well.

You may not agree with someone's lifestyle choices, but when you're in business, with a business location, with a business license, you cannot and should not discriminate for any reason.

Now, where do I draw the line? I'm not sure. I just try to be the best 'me' I can be in my profession. However, I admit that in my line of work (financial services), my knowledge of estate planning issues for same-sex couples is limited. Based on that reason alone, I would recommend that such couples find a specialist to ensure the best service and advice. I have worked with same-sex couples before with investment services. One time, it actually didn't 'register' until after they left my office that they were 'involved'. I was comfortable talking with them and they didn't seem to have any problems with me either.

They are still human beings, and they must think highly of your services in order to explore what you offer. However, that is MY point of view. I don't have to have someone agree with me in order to do business with me.

[Guest]

I don't know what's wrong with me, but I agree with HoosierGuy on this one.

Any retail business with a storefront that offers goods and services to the public, should not be discriminating against anyone for religious, sexual orientation, race, political views, etc. The only discriminating factor there should be, is if you can afford the items or services you desire.

One's religious values should show up in the marketplace by simply providing a good service to all who enter their business location. Show pride in your work, and be a person (establishment) of your word. Stand behind your work and serve your customers well.

You may not agree with someone's lifestyle choices, but when you're in business, with a business location, with a business license, you cannot and should not discriminate for any reason.

Now, where do I draw the line? I'm not sure. I just try to be the best 'me' I can be in my profession. However, I admit that in my line of work (financial services), my knowledge of estate planning issues for same-sex couples is limited. Based on that reason alone, I would recommend that such couples find a specialist to ensure the best service and advice. I have worked with same-sex couples before with investment services. One time, it actually didn't 'register' until after they left my office that they were 'involved'. I was comfortable talking with them and they didn't seem to have any problems with me either.

They are still human beings, and they must think highly of your services in order to explore what you offer. However, that is MY point of view. I don't have to have someone agree with me in order to do business with me.

Having a point of view is fine. Imposing your point of view on my private business by using the arm of the law is NOT FINE.

[LittleWyvern]

I could put a lot of words here, but all this really boils down to is whether or not businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The rest is just extraneous stuff. Yes, that means that while the religious aspect of this particular case is interesting, I don't think it's particularly important as far legalities go.

EDIT: Although I suppose the question for some here is instead whether or not we should have anti-discrimination laws at all.

Edited January 22, 2014 by LittleWyvern

[The Folk Prophet]

...all this really boils down to is whether or not businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation...

Not quite. As pointed out previously, it's about whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gay weddings. A gay person simply getting their photo taken or buying a cake isn't the issue.

[LittleWyvern]

it's about whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gay weddings.

...Which I would argue is a strict subset of discriminating based on sexual orientation.

[skippy740]

Having a point of view is fine. Imposing your point of view on my private business by using the arm of the law is NOT FINE.

Lots of "points of view" are imposed on private businesses... particularly who you can hire and reasons you can fire employees.

In every business with employees, OSHA requires all those "posters" about discrimination, minimum wage, whistleblowing, etc., in break rooms or other places where all employees can see them.

The reason business owners and managers can 'get around them' is because you can say that the disabled person wouldn't be a good fit for your business. Or you can 'discriminate' against the same-sex attraction person in favor of another because of another candidate's experience or other substantial reason. It's very easy to discriminate, and yet be in full compliance by choosing another acceptable reason.

However, with THIS, as was said earlier, this appears to be discrimination against same-sex weddings. Kinda hard to get around that one.

[Vort]

Suppose a 50-year-old man entered your cake shop and requested a wedding cake for himself and his 14-year-old bride. You say, "No way! That's not even legal!" The man responds that he has secured parental permission to wed the girl, so in your state, it is indeed legal. Are you then CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to provide this guy a wedding cake? Or is it reasonable to say, "Make your own darn wedding cake, or find someone else to. I will have nothing to do with your wedding"?

I understand the perceived need for anti-discrimination laws, but some things seem pretty obviously to be matters of taste and personal comfort. I see nothing wrong with telling the middle-aged guy marrying the 14-year-old girl that you don't want his business. So what is wrong with saying the same thing to a homosexual couple?

[skippy740]

I will have nothing to do with your wedding

Uh... let me ask a question:

Does everything one does for preparing for a wedding mean that you SUPPORT that wedding?

You see, to me, supporting a wedding means that you are GIVING of yourself for that wedding - either in time, gifts, or DISCOUNTED professional services.

If you are charging the market rates for the cake, all you're doing is making the cake. You are not "supporting" the wedding. You actually have "nothing" to do with the wedding itself. You exchanged money for the product. That's it. There is no 'endorsement' or other support of the wedding of any kind.

So, my response to your situation would be "You want a cake? Okay, you can have a cake. That'll be $1,295 for the cake on page 4 in the catalog." You don't even have to wish them a wonderful day. You provided the service, they paid you for it.

[Vort]

So, my response to your situation would be "You want a cake? Okay, you can have a cake. That'll be $1,295 for the cake on page 4 in the catalog." You don't even have to wish them a wonderful day. You provided the service, they paid you for it.

Do you honestly believe that the shopowner could have charged the homosexuals a thousand dollars for their cake without repercussions?

[skippy740]

I've never paid for a wedding cake. I'm sure Buddy Velasco (Cake Boss) charges much more than $1,295 for a cake... no matter who is buying it.

I just made up a figure.

[Vort]

So the cost was not the point. Okay. Then I still stand by my post. You might not have a problem with helping the celebration of a middle-aged man marry a child, but others would. It seems evident to me that a person ought not to be forced to contribute to such a thing, even if he has opened a business.

[skippy740]

But that's my point: what are they 'contributing'?

They are contributing NOTHING. They have exchanged cash for product/service. They are adding nothing in addition to that.

I suppose you may be saying that "their name is on the cake because they made it (at least on the box), so it must go to something they endorse and like."

I simply don't share that view.

[Still_Small_Voice]

This will eventually turn into this in the United States if it is not stopped:

Evangelist Arrested in Scotland for Preaching That Homosexuality Is a Sin

An American preacher serving on a week-long mission trip in Scotland was reportedly arrested Wednesday for openly preaching that homosexuality is a sin.

Former Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Sheriff Tony Miano Was Arrested in Scotland for Preaching That Homosexuality Is a Sin

Tony Miano’s legal problems began when he delivered generalcomments about immorality during an outdoor sermon.

He spoke about adultery, promiscuity and — homosexuality, The Christian Post reported.

It was this latter issue that ended up landing Miano, who once served as Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff, in hot water.

As he was preaching, a woman who disagreed with his message yelled out that she has a gay son and threatened to call police on Miano and Pastor Josh Williamson, another preacher who accompanied him.

“Tony wasn’t focusing just on homosexual practice — it was about all sin,” Williamson said in a statement distributed by the Christian Legal Centre, a legal group based in London. “A woman was yelling at him and her friend noticed we were filming the preaching, so she ran up to me and tried to smash my camera.”

The woman then made good on her promise and called the police.

When Scottish authorities arrived, they reportedly arrested Miano on the charge of “breach of peace with ‘homophobic’ aggravation.”

He was detained after a police officer questioned the woman about what had unfolded, according to the Christian Legal Centre, though police reportedly didn’t ask for his side of the story.

The pastor, who pleaded not guilty, was later released on bail and is expected to show up to court on April 22, though he is permitted to return to his home in the U.S. in the mean time.

Read more here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/10/former-lapd-deputy-sheriff-arrested-in-scotland-for-preaching-that-homosexuality-is-a-sin/

[Guest]

Lots of "points of view" are imposed on private businesses... particularly who you can hire and reasons you can fire employees.

In every business with employees, OSHA requires all those "posters" about discrimination, minimum wage, whistleblowing, etc., in break rooms or other places where all employees can see them.

The reason business owners and managers can 'get around them' is because you can say that the disabled person wouldn't be a good fit for your business. Or you can 'discriminate' against the same-sex attraction person in favor of another because of another candidate's experience or other substantial reason. It's very easy to discriminate, and yet be in full compliance by choosing another acceptable reason.

However, with THIS, as was said earlier, this appears to be discrimination against same-sex weddings. Kinda hard to get around that one.

They are only imposed on private business because at one point in American Hostory, they decided that those things are a protected class. No such thing exists for sexual orientation.

Now, are you then arguing that sexual activity should be a protected class? It would be like arguing that smokers are a protected class....

Of course, there's no law preventing anybody for any reason from taking their business somewhere else. But no.... We have to force Cake Company A to sell you a wedding cake when Cake Company B next door is just as happy making you one.

[skippy740]

According to the US Government, sexual orientation (not 'activity') is a 'protected class':

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation

These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity. The Commission's interpretations of these statutes apply to its adjudication and enforcement in federal sector as well as private sector and state and local government employment.

The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20ATF.txt. The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.

[M_T_E]

Oregon is a hardcore liberal state, which means sadly the state government feels the need to dip into many places it has no right to be in.

[skippy740]

Let's turn the tables a little bit.

Let's suppose that you're planning to get sealed in the temple at Portland Oregon. Let's suppose that you go into the best cake shop in Oregon and ask them to make a cake with a picture of the temple on it.

They refuse, citing that they don't "believe the way we do".

What would you do?

Now, as good LDS people, we've been taught the value of adversity, no matter how slight. We could argue, and even complain. But we'd probably just shrug it off and find another cake shop.

We would NOT be organizing picketing in front of the store, harassing the owners, threatening vendors or anything else as was described in the article. I do NOT support this action at all.

Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740

[skippy740]

Now, you might think that these 'couples' are specifically targeting Christian or other faith establishments in order to "put their marriages in their faces".

The best way to take the wind out of their fight... is to not give them a fight about it. Be of such great service... that if they were looking for a fight, they'd have to go somewhere else.

According to the OP link:

“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he said. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”

It wasn't because of a religious view. It was because they declined to provide professional services based on one's sexual orientation.

[Guest]

According to the US Government, sexual orientation (not 'activity') is a 'protected class':

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation

You're misinterpreting that. There are two genders - male or female. Gender is a protected class. A lesbian, gay, transgender, or bisexual, active or inactive does not make them un-female or un-male... Meaning that just because a male likes to jiggy with another male does not make him an "it" causing him to lose his protected status as a male person.

Make sense?

[Guest]

Let's turn the tables a little bit.

Let's suppose that you're planning to get sealed in the temple at Portland Oregon. Let's suppose that you go into the best cake shop in Oregon and ask them to make a cake with a picture of the temple on it.

They refuse, citing that they don't "believe the way we do".

What would you do?

Now, as good LDS people, we've been taught the value of adversity, no matter how slight. We could argue, and even complain. But we'd probably just shrug it off and find another cake shop.

We would NOT be organizing picketing in front of the store, harassing the owners, threatening vendors or anything else as was described in the article. I do NOT support this action at all.

I would go to another store that makes cakes with Temples.

It's really not rocket science. It happens everyday. A Catholic Store will not sell you a blessed artifact unless you are Catholic. The distribution center will not sell you garments unless you're endowed. AllState will not sell you car insurance if you have 12 points on your driver's license. If you're not wearing a shirt, a theater won't sell you a ticket. If I don't like your attitude, I can kick you out of my restaurant. If a photographer thinks you're a wife beater, she should not have to be forced to take your wedding photos. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[Guest]

Now, you might think that these 'couples' are specifically targeting Christian or other faith establishments in order to "put their marriages in their faces".

The best way to take the wind out of their fight... is to not give them a fight about it. Be of such great service... that if they were looking for a fight, they'd have to go somewhere else.

According to the OP link:

It wasn't because of a religious view. It was because they declined to provide professional services based on one's sexual orientation.

An orientation contrary to their religious views.