Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

Thanks, maxi-pad. Apparently you're alone in your thoughts. Or everyone else cant admit it. LOL.

 

Yet you're dictating the status of my marriage and what you think I should think and do.

 

Not at all. Not in my marriage. And I didn't fight. I donated a little bit of money but it was other people who fought for me and I'm thankful for them.

 

Nope. Just separating the temporal from the spiritual. We're not the Holy Roman Empire.

 

Well the people who owned the bakery actually had to close because of continuous protester since the incident. And it was because of "Wedding Cake" not the cake that they refused due to their religious principles.

Too bad the people of Portland have become such bigots that they can not leave people room to have and practice their religion. It is also too bad that Gay people can not respect the views of others, that getting their way is the only thing that counts. They are not Gay in the original sense of the word, selfishly and irreligious would have been more descriptive words for the group to usurp.

As a student of religion you also must include the non religious in the study, including the atheists and the heathenish. Running this bakery out of business seems to be more heathenish that Gay, certainly irreligious.

 

I wonder what the reaction would be to this whole brouhaha if the situation were reversed. Say that a gay couple running a bakery is asked to provide a wedding cake to a Christian couple attending a church known for teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. If the gay couple, operating a business that is a public accommodation, says that they won't provide a cake to the couple because of their church's "hateful" teachings they would be discriminating against a protected class (religion) yet somehow I suspect the whole take by the press and the LGBT community would be different.

In my view, the Christian couple are totally off base in their position. They seem to have decided that they won't provide their services to individuals engaged in one "sinful" practice, yet they ignore the multiplicities of other "sinful" behaviors that could be picked out of the Bible. They presumably provided cakes to heterosexual couples who may have been having sexual relations outside of marriage prior to their wedding. What about couples who have been previously divorced for non-scriptural reasons? Smokers? Dancers? Tattooed people? Women who cut their hair or appear in public during their menstrual cycles? There are certainly passages in the Bible that speak ill of all of those things and many more. If Christians were to only provide services to people who were not sinners, they wouldn't be in business long. I think that Jesus dealt with this whole issue of worrying about other people's sins pretty clearly when he told the mob of men who were eager to stone an adulteress to death that he who is without sin should throw the first stone. In this case, maybe it's cake rather than a stone.

 

The reason why they declined to fill this order doesn't matter to me. What is important to me is that every person who runs a business, or provides a good or a service, has the right to accept or decline business as they please.

 

I understand where you're coming from, Maxi, but if you're open to the public, a business has to comply with nondiscrimination laws:

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx#state

 

We all see the law. It's been talked about to no end throughout this thread. Those that disagree that the bakers should be punished are saying that the law is bad. I believe the law, as written, is not allowing the people to practice their religion. It's in violation of the separation of church and state. The bakers have never otherwise refused service to customers. They simply did not provide a wedding cake for a gay couple, as the "wedding" piece of the equation is something their religion does not believe in.

 

I get there is a law, I simply disagree with it. I also realize it puts me in a very small minority.

 

Judging by the thread, and from those I know (not necessarily in regards to this specific case, but in general), there are a lot more people that agree with you than you think.

 

I suspect that they could have avoided this whole problem if they had posted a sign at their establishment stating that they reserved the right to refuse to add text that they found objectionable on any of their decorated products. Provide a nice cake stating the couple's name and congratulating them. Any text referring to their wedding would have to be added elsewhere.

 

There are a lot of laws I don't agree with either, but in my business I comply with those that are in effect even while I may work behind the scenes to change ones I find objectionable.

 

You can't force someone to congratulate someone for something they don't believe exists.

 

Is that the Law? Or a department information guide? Are not all laws part of the Oregon Revised Statutes for the State of Oregon?

Anyway, reading that law it was the Bakery people that had their rights trampled. They are members of a protected group based upon religion. The Gay couple were not discriminated against for their sexual orientation (a protected group). They asked for a "Wedding" cake implying the action of being Married. Refusing to assist with activity that violates religious principles is not an act discriminating against a protected group, it is a refusal to participate in an activity that violates a religious value by a member of a religious group ( a protected group).

I am sure the Gay people could have bought all the cakes they wish.

Ah yes here it is Oregon Statutes 659A.403

In reading the actual Law, I don't believe the Gay were denied service for sexual orientation.
I believe they were denied service for asking for services that offended the religious principles of
people of a religious protected group.
If the members of the sexual orientation protected group had ask for a cake, service would no doubt have been rendered.

Had this case actually went to court, the people of Portland might have learned, but instead the hounded a small business until they felt they had to surrender to undo public pressure.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/659a.html

 

There's nothing said about a "protected group" or a requirement that the law only applies to minorities. It just says that if you operate a place of "public accommodation" then you can't discriminate between customers based upon any of the listed factors.

 

I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with MarAzul's interpretation of the situation. The Christian couple were the ones operating a business as a place of public accommodation. That means that they can't discriminate in the services they offer based on any of the factors listed in the law. That said, I still think that they could have reserved the right to refuse to put any decorative touches or text on one of their cakes if they found it to be something they objected to.