Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

ten blacks enter, one at a time, each turned away for being "too drunk" they will have a whippersnapper of a lawsuit and own the bar before too long.



p.s. I think this was my first ever written use of the term whippersnapper.

 

The bartender can't use drunkenness if the person has not had a drink yet. There was even a lawsuit a while back where a bar was sued because someone with a speech impediment was refused service for being drunk when they hadn't had anything yet. I'm not sure who won, or where the case took place, but I remember it making the news around a decade ago.

 

Did the Mormon refuse to give his friend a blow job, cause if that's the case, well, he's just not a good friend.

 

Or a more close example. What if the baker is morally against interracial marriages. Listen black guy, I don't have anything against black people. I just don't believe that black people should be able to get married (either legally or religiously or whatever) to white people. I will gladly sell you a cake. I just won't bake you a wedding cake for an interracial marriage, because it's against my reading of the bible. Is this any different? I don't have anything against your gender, I just don't think it's moral for you to marry someone else of the same gender.

 

But you do get to decide to be gay.

Just sayin'.

 

Regardless of your outdated opinion, that doesn't change the fact that it is a protected class.

 

How the hell is the fact that someone can decide to be gay an "outdated opinion?"

 

Fine, scrub that part from my quote. It still stands true that whatever your opinion may be, it doesn't change that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

Crandc, you are right on point. Selling a product, selling services that is not a legal distinction that will make a difference in the case (the business is selling cakes and they denied their business, open to the public, to the couple based on their sexual orientation.) Whether the bakery makes the cake themselves or sell premade cakes isn't the issue. The issue is if a business can deny you what the are in business for based on your sexual orientation.

Also, as you point out, there is an obvious difference between a private home and a public business.

An interesting, and much more important, issue dealing with religion here in Oregon was a case in which a family's religious belief prohibited doctors (modern medicine) from helping if someone is sick. One family refused to take their child to a doctor (instead they just prayed) and the child died of complications that could have been resolved by modern medicine. The parents were charged with negligent homicide and used their religious faith as a defense. The jury did not buy this religious defense and convicted the parents . . . now that is what the court system should be used for, IMO.

 

This case is likely to settle out of court, but if I was on a jury and just knowing what I know in this thread . . . I would find for the plaintiffs and award them $1.00

 

but part of that award is to make sure they, and others in the community follow the law. If you just awarded $1 then I am pretty sure the bakers would go home feeling like they won and can do it again and again. Others in the community who wish to discriminate will think, hey, it's only costs a buck, for the price of a soda i can discriminate to my hearts content.

It seems to me, something tough but not totally detrimental would be better, an award in the $1-5,000 range. Enough to sting but not enough to make them lose their business.

 

The law is what's wrong.

No one is arguing that the law doesn't exist, just that it shouldn't.

So saying over and over again that it's against the law for a business to discriminate is pointless.

I just feel like a lot of people weren't understanding that point of view in this thread.

 

That is good point. That verdict probably wouldn't do much to correct the business' conduct . . . the $1.00 is more a reflection of what I think the damages are to the couple in a case like this. Maybe the atty will file for punative damages which is more about sending a message to the business.

There are also attorney fees involved that might help the bakery to make a different decision next time. Really after talking to an attorney, they probably realize all they have to do is give a "valid" reason why they won't sell a cake and they can avoid this all together.

 

Ding ding ding! Winner winner tuckey dinner! We-eeeeeew! we-eeeeeew! We-eeeeeew!

And I thought reading comprehension was an issue with today's youth........

 

Child please. Don't you remember the OHSU case where the money grubbbers would have aborted their pregnancy if they'd have known their fetus was retarded was awared some serious cash money because the doctors were incorrect on the test that NOT 100% guaranteed? I expect this lovely couple to be awarded at least double, if not triple, the amount.

 

A little difference between birth of a child and a wedding cake, but yes if they win they will likely get over $1.00

If you were on the jury and by law found the business violated the law, you are then required to award damages to the plaintiff for the suffering and inconvenience. What dollar amount would you give to the plaintiffs in this case (again assuming by law they are right and you have to award damages)

 

The sarcasm went over your head? I felt the OHSU case was a complete and utter joke (as did many, since the couple that was awarded the millions of dollars allegedly received death threats).

I thought my stance on this situation was perfectly clear. The complaint is a joke. I hope it gets tossed out. I hope neither side is given a penny.

Okay, give the couple a penny, since they should come out ahead of the bakers in the end because were it not for the bakers denying the couple a cake, none of this would be an issue.

 

I got you were being funny (child please) but you did raise a good point. If that case gets millions in MULTO, then this cake case will get over $1.00 in the same venue.

For all the jokes and bad mouthing the Westside takes (probably justified) . . . file this case in WACO and it get tossed out, IMO. In fact, no attorney would file that in WACO. Not a lot of liberal sympathy going on out here . . . demographics is a lot of hispanics and white collar families . . . and the white collar famalies don't seem to like the hispanics . . . but they do love their neatly manicured lawns.

 

Found this:

OREGON CITY -- A Clackamas County jury sent a clear signal Tuesday that parents who rely solely on faith healing to treat their children face prison if a child dies.

Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty Tuesday of criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, Neil. The boy died in June 2008 of complications from an undiagnosed congenital urinary blockage after his parents attempted to heal him with prayer, anointing with oil and laying on of hands.

They are the first members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ church convicted of homicide in the congregation's long history of children dying from from treatable medical conditions.

"This is a signal to the religious community that they should be on notice that their activities will be scrutinized," said Steven K. Green, director of Willamette University's Center for Religion and Democracy.



Can't always hide behind religion to justify your actions