Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

Refusing to sell product to someone is refusing service! Damn, and I thought Jews were good at splitting hairs.

One's home is not the same as a public business. And the law clearly recognizes this. A public business is a public place, people can and do walk in. That's what the business is for, after all. One's home is one's own space. You (should) have every right to close your doors. That is unfortunately not always respected. Denny, you are not a stupid person and not a bigot so will you get off your libertarian "business can do anything they want" high horse and not post ridiculous comments like your home and your business are the same thing? I'm sure you know they are not.

Still waiting to hear what other laws businesses are allowed to break if they feel like it or because Jesus.

 

No it's not. It's different. The bakery could have provided service, they could have provided a cake, but they refused to provide a WEDDING cake. We don't know all the ins and outs. But if they choose to not provide a wedding cake to a couple that cannot legally marry and it's out of the confines of the bakers' religion, that should be there choice, so long as they don't totally blow them off. I dont' care what you think the law says. I'm saying it's ruh-tarded if a law actually forces people to push the envelope on this. It's wrong to completely blow off any service or product. But if that isn't otherwise denied, I see nothing wrong with the fact the bakers didn't want to provide a wedding cake (other than they're bigots).

As I mentioned earlier, I guess I'm not some selfish, helpless person that needs to make a big statement and draw the attention to myself because I wasn't treated fairly. I don't need to be a tattletale. I don't need to make an example. I don't need sympathy. I'd be a bigger person. I'd say, "Sorry you feel the way you do - God will judge you later," bounce and be on my way to a place that wants my money.

The couple is basically forcing the bakers to accept them and their beliefs while cutting down the beliefs of the bakers.

 

Well since it is already a protected class, then I would think (could be wrong) it is a moot point. If they believe that, then trying to get sexual orientation off that list would be the rout to go. There are just certain things you cannot discriminate based on and whether they like it or not, sexual orientation is one of them.

Now, if I'm mixing all this up and "protected classes" don't apply in this instance, I could be wrong about this all. I just don't see any difference (given that status) between this and segregated restaurants/pools/etc.

 

yeah..aside from assuming a lack of liqour license..you have a good point..

a thought..if there is no legal gay weddings, how can someone demand a gay wedding cake?

 

I think this is the fundamental difference in your view point and mine. I don't view gay people as a special interest group with a sexual preference. I view them as humans with the right to live their life and peruse their happiness in anyway way they see fit, with all the legal rights and privileges that I posses. I don't view their sexual orientation as a preference either, I have know to many gay people to say they just prefer that lifestyle, they ARE that lifestyle. I also view their freedoms to be equal to mine, and maintaining their rights is just as important as maintaining mine.

For example lest compare gay "special interest" to the gun rights "special interest", as I know you feel more passionately towards that issue. I am not a gun guy, I hate guns and do not want to own one or have one in my house. In fact when I hear about how the NRA uses fear mongering, lobbyists, and extreme politics I get put off and feel more negative towards that interest. However I support everyone else's right to bear arms as that is a freedom we should all posses, and by limiting that freedom for other people I am in-turn limiting my freedoms.

In the end we are all selfish and really are passionate about the issues that effect us directly (for the most part), as I'm probably not going to join any pro gun rallies or even any pro gay rallies. I do however work hard in my life at having empathy for everyone though.

 

Well, Gresham is only 10 minutes from Vancouver, so that could be a possibility (probably not the case in this instance, but that popped in my head). But maybe that is a technicality they will use to win. They weren't offering because they are against gays (even though they said they are), but because they are against non legally binding ceremonies. Seems like a stretch, but who knows.

 

ahh I see are on your game..nice post and repped

 

read 114

I think it has far less to do about how it effects me, because for the most part , I dont care. As a mater of fact, I dont feel that I have any right to make someone conform to my ideals, of live their life to please me, as long as there are no laws broken and you do not infringe upon my lifestyle. I dont understand the attraction, I dont believe that being gay was the grand design..but again, it has zero effect on me,so I dont care.

I am of an age that I have seen gays go from being mocked if even mentioned to where it is now trendy,celebrated and privileged...where they once sought inclusion they now demand exception..there in lies my rub

 

I read that and I respect that for sure and its better than hating gays. My point though is that like I am told that I need to care about gun rights (rightfully so), you should also care about gay rights for the same reason, even if you disagree with their lifestyle. Freedom is freedom.

 

I certainly agree with you ethically. I think I also agree with you legally. I guess it just bothers me that it has to be dealt with in the law at all. There is something nice about a personal business being able to make their own decisions on who they serve, but there are just too many bigots in the world.


Just thought of this:
If a bar is legally bound to serve an alcoholic beverage to a pregnant women, I think a bakery can be forced to serve cake to a gay couple.

 

hmm the best distinction here so far is between cake and "wedding" cake..as well as the fact that they were not denied service, just a wedding cake. oh and the fact that there are no gay weddings in oregon..thi is a tough subject to even have to think on..it really effects you and I about the same..zero

 

YOU HAVE IT!!!! Bakery Bouncers!

 

They weren't refusing overall service or other products. They refused a wedding cake because they did not produce a wedding cake for something that does not exist from their viewpoint. If gay marriage doesn't exist to them, how can they produce a wedding cake? Why should they be forced to?

I buy things all the time. Food, things for the house, various work from contractors, etc. They all tell me what they can and cannot do.

 

you are wrong. they may deny service for many reasons, but they are not legally permitted to deny on the basis of race for example, or pregnancy.

I used to be a bartender and had to take the OLCC tests. The Bouncers (I was also a bouncer for a while) can throw people out for many reasons, but if they throw someone out for being Black they will be screwed too.

 

So if a black guy goes into a cafe and says, "I want pie" and is refused because "he is black", the owner can later say "I only refused a specific product and not service or other products?".

I don't get your personal example. Are they refusing you for some reason? If that reason is race/religion/sex/sexual orientation, then they are in the wrong.

 

in todays court of public opinion, it only works the other way around..you have to prove he was drunk, and that you had never said th N work in your life