Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

You talk about it becoming a big thing. What if a business owner refuses to sell to someone gay because they were a fucking asshole and use this ruling as some reason of violation? I can see numerous frivolous lawsuits using this ruling to justify their claim.

Once a ruling is passed, then that ruling can be used in further cases. It can open a can of worms. It's definitely a slippery slope.

 

This already exists. The business owners explicitly said they would not bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, not that they refused to bake a cake because the customer was an asshole. You have to meet your burden of proof to show that the real reason for the different treatment was because of your protected status. It is no different than when a minority is fired. They don't say we fired you because you were a minority, they have some other reason.

 

In not referring to this owner though. I'm talking about those that "do" bake cake for gay people, but on one occasion, a fucking asshole gay person comes in and they refuse to serve them. Then that gay couple uses the ruling from this case to use in his case against this baker.

When you cite "winning rulings" the judge must take that into consideration. If they can prove they are similar, the judge will most likely rule in their favor:

 

So because someone has won a racial discrimination case, the judge must side with new plaintiffs who bring a racial discrimination case? I don't think it works like that. Sure, if the bakers lose and a future baker does the same thing by overtly saying they won't bake them a cake because they are gay, then you probably would get the same outcome. But if the baker has a different reason for refusing to make the cake, the court or jury will decide if the proffered reason is pretextual or if it is legitimate. I remember there was a case about 5 years ago where a baker refused to make a birthday cake for Adolf. Some whackadoodles had named their kid Adolf Hitler or something like that. I believe the CPS got involved. Maybe that example might help the bakers in this case, but I just don't see it going that way for them and I do not see a huge flood of discrimination cases against bakers being filed if the bakers lose.

 

It does work like that. Attorneys cite other cases all the time; which help to support their current case. And it won't be to just bakers. It can apply to any business owner refusing the sale to gay people.

 

I dont know..sexual preference is such a non issue to me..I am beginning to feel that the more "special" these groups become, the less inclined I am to have positive feelings towards them

 

Thank you for the serious answer. I have co-workers who completely agree with you, and I see where you/they are coming but I still side on the ban.

 

I understand and sometimes feel the same way. I think it's more like as a white male, I am experiencing what the rest of america goes through. A good example is, have you ever been pulled over for "your tire pressure looks low, oh and you're white?" Nope, it just sounds silly. But we all know it does happen for minorities, maybe not in Oregon, but it does.

 

Big distinction in all this, though: they were refused a wedding cake. NOT service.

They were not refused service, and I believe in one of the interviews or articles I saw/read, the couple had been there before and had been served or the bakers were willing to serve them. They just simply refused to provide a wedding cake.

 

Attorneys cite cases if they are factually similar. They will borrow from other areas of the law to fill in gaps. There is a well established Civil Rights Act and burden shifting in place for those cases where there is a dispute as to whether the reason for the business's actions were discriminatory or not. You are acting as if no one has ever filed a discrimination case before. If they can't prove that the refusal was discriminatory, it is not the same case as this one where the bakers openly said that they wouldn't bake the cake due to the fact it was a same-sex ceremony/wedding. Comparing the two situations is like saying that because a court convicted an admitted killer of murder, that anyone accused of murder has to be convicted too because you can cite a case where a murderer was convicted. If the accused denies that they had the intent to kill or that they even did the act, there is a trial and a determination as to what actually happened. This is no different. If a baker says, yeah I wouldn't bake them a cake because they called me awful names and were generally rude (not because they are gay), well that is a different case than a baker who publicly admits they don't support same sex marriage and therefore will not sell cakes for a same sex wedding.

 

That is a very interesting point, which could sway a jury. The other point that marriage to same sex couples in Oregon is not legal, could play a factor.

 

The first amendment was brought up as a reason why this should not happen, no state religion and all, but I don't think this issue is quite so cut and dry. The 1st also prohibits the state from impeding the free exercise of religion. So the question is, does a law that requires the religious to serve gays violate either part of the 1st. It would seem to me that both sides could make a competent legal argument regarding the their side. The Gay couple would say that the laws should treat everyone equally and should not have a carve out for a particular religion, making that religion (Christianity in this case) the de facto state religion. The business owners would argue that any law forcing them to serve gays would be impeding their freedom of religion.

So basically, legally I don't think it's easy to say who is right or wrong. But ethically and morally, bake the fucking cake. I do hope that all the straight couples that will be looking to buy cakes in the near future decide to go elsewhere and I hope these guys go out of business because of their stance. But I'm not sure if the state should be making the determination.

Now the interesting thing in my mind is that the larger the business, and the more lives it intersects with, the more the govt should be able to interfere, but there is no clear cut reasoning as to what that number is. But a 2 person business is different from a 20, is different from 2000. We (the state) certainly does have a lot of regulations in other areas.

I'm basically just thinking out loud here, i certain of the ethical nature of the situation, but not sure about legality and at what level I want the states involvement.

 

I think it has far less to do about how it effects me, because for the most part , I dont care. As a mter of fact, I dont feel that Ihave any right tomake someone conform to my ideals, of live their life to please me, as long as there are no laws broken and you donot 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 Ihave 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 completely overlooked this. My mistake.

 

hmm The best counter I have caught yet is would you force a muslim catere to provide booze at an event, and if he refused to do so based upon religious beliefs..are you going to make a stink over it?

 

The whole fucking thing is ridiculous.

First of all, fuck the wedding industry for preying on people. Everything becomes 10x more expensive when it's for a wedding. The couple should have just bought a "cake" and reaped the benefits of it being way cheaper.

Secondly, do these people think that by making a "wedding cake" for a gay couple, they are showing approval? It's called making money. Who gives a shit who buys your products?

 

This isn't a good analogy at all. If a muslim owns a venue or catering company, presumedly they wouldn't offer booze at all. Them refusing to offer alcohol is not discriminatory against any particular group, it is just the rule that they have. I would think they wouldn't even have a liquor license if this was the case.

I think people are missing the point. It isn't that they are refusing to do something because of their beliefs, but rather they are refusing to serve (how is selling cake different from serving food?) a customer based on sexual orientation, which has been a protected class in Oregon for years. It would be the same if they refused a cake to a black person and then said, "I won't sell you a cake because you are black".

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the debater in me finds this argument interesting.

Do you think it changes the argument if you consider that many Christians believe that being gay is a choice? I personally don't believe that being gay was a choice, but for a lot of people that's how they look at it. So when you compare homosexuality with something like being black, they find it ridiculous because the color of your skin is something you're born with. As ridiculous as it is, I've heard people compare being gay with being a pedophile or some kind of pervert, which I find funny because I don't think pedophiles made the choice to be pedophiles either.

Anyway, my point is, if you looked at being gay as a choice, and not something you're born with, is it different than saying "no shirt, no shoes, no service?"