Oregon Bakery: Sweet Cakes By Melissa. Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to lesbian couple. The State Took 'God's Money' From Us

  • metta

    Posts: 39095

    Feb 04, 2013 6:20 AM GMT
    Bakery under investigation for refusing wedding cake for same-sex couple

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/02/bakery-under-investigation-for-refusing-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple/

    http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/

    http://local.yahoo.com/info-58796386-sweet-cakes-gresham?tab=reviews

    http://www.yelp.com/biz/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-gresham




    Another Oregon Baker Denies Baking Wedding Cake for Gay Couple





    http://www.towleroad.com/2013/05/hanson.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 12:10 PM GMT
    This case isn't as cut and dry as it seems. As disappointed that I am the bakery owner is taking this stance, I don't see how Oregon has a real case. Was he being discriminatory? Yes...BUT, marriage between same sex couples is not legal within the state. As a result, the state would have a tough time pushing such a case without creating an interesting side case about marriage equality as well. Maybe they do want to shake things up. If the state does, I think it's great. If not, I understand too--from a legal perspective.

    Furthermore, the owner could state that the Oregon law is discriminating against his first amendment right to free religious expression. This might sound crazy (and it just might be), but he could argue that the state has no right to supercede federal law by forcing him to run a business that forces him to violate his religious beliefs. While I would disagree with him vehemently, he may have a winnable case if he takes that tactic.

    (No, I don't support this jack ass bakery owner winning his casr. I'm just getting my point out there that it's not an open and shut case.)
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Feb 04, 2013 12:27 PM GMT
    I looked up some law. Sexual orientation is NOT a fedrally protected class under the Civil Rights Act, but (haha) it is a protected class under non-discrimination law in Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx:

    "It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)."

    There is no religious belief exception to non-discrimination law, i.e., you couldn't claim you're allowed to not serve blacks in your bakery because you're a fundamentalist Mormon. The bakery could counter, I guess, that because of DOMA they are allowed to discriminate against gay marriage, but I believe DOMA allows state law to supersede.

    In short, I think the state and the couple might have a case should they choose to pursue it. Personally, I wouldn't. I think the investigatory heat and negative publicity is enough, but I won't cry for these bakery owners either way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 12:34 PM GMT
    ^
    Agreed.

    I have no idea what redsoxfan791 is talking about, but that's par for the course with his comments.

    The bakery owner cannot discriminate. He and his wife will get sued; they will lose the lawsuit and, in turn, lose their business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 12:52 PM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    redsoxfan791 saidWas he being discriminatory? Yes...BUT, marriage between same sex couples is not legal within the state.

    Why do people keep saying this? It is legally irrelevant whether marriages are legal in Oregon or not. For one thing, the intended marriage might be taking place over the border in Washington, where it is legal. And for another, baking a fucking cake for an "illegal" wedding does NOT make you an accessory to crime.

    This is such bullshit that it actually makes my ears bleed.


    My point was primarily that the state is being equally discriminatory with regards to their own marriage laws. Plus, I never said I agreed with it (I don't), I was merely pointing out that this case isn't as simple as most people on both sides of the political spectrum will try to make it seem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 12:53 PM GMT
    I'm disappointed that it doesn't seem they can be prosecuted. However, this is most certainly an anti-Gay stance/practice by this bakery. If you read his words in the first interview on another thread's link, you would have to be a complete moron not to realize this guy is a homophobic jerk.
    The important thing is the fact that this BAD publicity is out there. And will continue to be for a long time. icon_wink.gif

    Even chick-fil-a didn't like the bad publicity. Granted it didn't hurt them too much financially, but ALL of my friends stopped going there. And I STRONGLY "suggested" to employees at work to not go there for lunch. I know of many others who did the same. So they did lose some customers. But word of mouth, and bad publicity sometimes hurts a company more in the long run.
    And an establishment as small and financially insignificant as this bakery is, will certainly feel the financial squeeze. My only hope is that this will put this bigot out of business.

    Tristan

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 12:56 PM GMT
    credo said^
    Agreed.

    I have no idea what redsoxfan791 is talking about, but that's par for the course with his comments.

    The bakery owner cannot discriminate. He and his wife will get sued; they will lose the lawsuit and, in turn, lose their business.


    Hey, Credo. STFU. I was looking at it from a legal perspective, not an emotional perspective. I apologize if I didn't use the approved gay talking points, but some of us have brains that expand beyond what they heard on MSNBC this morning.

    I was merely pointing out possible pitfalls in the case. I'm not supporting the bakery shop owner, and said so within my post.


    My apologize to everyone for being a moderate. I realize this offends many of.you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 1:01 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidI looked up some law. Sexual orientation is NOT a fedrally protected class under the Civil Rights Act, but (haha) it is a protected class under non-discrimination law in Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx:

    "It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)."

    There is no religious belief exception to non-discrimination law, i.e., you couldn't claim you're allowed to not serve blacks in your bakery because you're a fundamentalist Mormon. The bakery could counter, I guess, that because of DOMA they are allowed to discriminate against gay marriage, but I believe DOMA allows state law to supersede.

    In short, I think the state and the couple might have a case should they choose to pursue it. Personally, I wouldn't. I think the investigatory heat and negative publicity is enough, but I won't cry for these bakery owners either way.


    Thanks for the link.

    Wouldn't DOMA only allow specific state marriage laws to supercede it? If that includes anti-discrimination laws, that's great. I suspect it may not though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 1:52 PM GMT
    With so many bakeries to choose from, I wouldn't waste my time or money giving my business to an establishment that doesn't accept my money, under any circumstances. Even if the customer wins the case, why would they want to financially contribute to the bakery's success?!?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:10 PM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidThis case isn't as cut and dry as it seems. As disappointed that I am the bakery owner is taking this stance, I don't see how Oregon has a real case. Was he being discriminatory? Yes...BUT, marriage between same sex couples is not legal within the state. As a result, the state would have a tough time pushing such a case without creating an interesting side case about marriage equality as well. Maybe they do want to shake things up. If the state does, I think it's great. If not, I understand too--from a legal perspective.

    Furthermore, the owner could state that the Oregon law is discriminating against his first amendment right to free religious expression. This might sound crazy (and it just might be), but he could argue that the state has no right to supercede federal law by forcing him to run a business that forces him to violate his religious beliefs. While I would disagree with him vehemently, he may have a winnable case if he takes that tactic.

    (No, I don't support this jack ass bakery owner winning his casr. I'm just getting my point out there that it's not an open and shut case.)


    The problem with this is argument is....us. Tell me, if Bill and I, who are married, set foot in Oregon, would we be arrested? If not, then the bakery is discriminating.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 04, 2013 4:14 PM GMT
    wait, hasn't this aready been a thread http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2988924or is this another bakery?
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Feb 04, 2013 4:17 PM GMT
    This is stupid. I don't think any business should be legally forced to serve anyone they aren't happy to serve. There are always other bakeries...

    This just creates a precedent that a business is legally obligated to support a marriage they are morally opposed to or they get the pants used off them. Does forcing morality ever help? No. It makes those for feel better and those against hate even more. The only way this could have gone without that was to make a public statement about this bakery, but peruse no action. The capitalist system would have sorted it out, not the legal one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:17 PM GMT
    thadjock saidwait, hasn't this aready been a thread http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2988924or is this another bakery?


    First article was just informing people that a bakery refused to serve. This article is that now the bakery is under investigation for doing so.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:18 PM GMT
    Medjai saidThis is stupid. I don't think any business should be legally forced to serve anyone they aren't happy to serve. There are always other bakeries...

    This just creates a precedent that a business is legally obligated to support a marriage they are morally opposed to or they get the pants used off them. Does forcing morality ever help? No. It makes those for feel better and those against hate even more. The only way this could have gone without that was to make a public statement about this bakery, but peruse no action. The capitalist system would have sorted it out, not the legal one.


    This has nothing to do with marriage. This is about not serving someone because they are themselves gay. This is along the same lines as not serving someone because they are black, because they don't like black people. It is illegal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:19 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis case isn't as cut and dry as it seems. As disappointed that I am the bakery owner is taking this stance, I don't see how Oregon has a real case. Was he being discriminatory? Yes...BUT, marriage between same sex couples is not legal within the state. As a result, the state would have a tough time pushing such a case without creating an interesting side case about marriage equality as well. Maybe they do want to shake things up. If the state does, I think it's great. If not, I understand too--from a legal perspective.

    Furthermore, the owner could state that the Oregon law is discriminating against his first amendment right to free religious expression. This might sound crazy (and it just might be), but he could argue that the state has no right to supercede federal law by forcing him to run a business that forces him to violate his religious beliefs. While I would disagree with him vehemently, he may have a winnable case if he takes that tactic.

    (No, I don't support this jack ass bakery owner winning his casr. I'm just getting my point out there that it's not an open and shut case.)


    The problem with this is argument is....us. Tell me, if Bill and I, who are married, set foot in Oregon, would we be arrested? If not, then the bakery is discriminating.


    It cuts both ways. If I remember correctly, the forum applauded when The Abbey here in West Hollywood banned bachorlette parties until gay marriage was legal here.

    The business doesnt have to make any cake they dont want too. They didnt refuse to sell a cake. They refused to make one. If they refused to make a cake with White Power on it I dont think people here would complain.

    They just need to go to another bakery.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 04, 2013 4:24 PM GMT
    msuNtx said
    First article was just informing people that a bakery refused to serve. This article is that now the bakery is under investigation for doing so.



    oh ok now i can see why this needs a totally different thread.....
    will there be a new thread when the bakery owner scratches his ass?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:27 PM GMT
    Mmmm cake....
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Feb 04, 2013 4:29 PM GMT
    jmusmc85 saidMmmm cake....


    just not gay cake, no gay cake for you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:36 PM GMT
    In this economy is it smart to avoid business especially a small bakery?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:46 PM GMT
    RadRTT saidIn this economy is it smart to avoid business especially a small bakery?

    Unless there's a miracle to be had, or it's just a publicity stunt, not at all. icon_neutral.gif
  • MidwesternKid

    Posts: 1167

    Feb 04, 2013 4:49 PM GMT
    In this economy why would you refuse business over something as silly as a cake for a gay couple?

    And please spell check. Federally, not Fedrally. Hate to be a douche bag but I couldn't let that one go.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 4:54 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    redsoxfan791 saidThis case isn't as cut and dry as it seems. As disappointed that I am the bakery owner is taking this stance, I don't see how Oregon has a real case. Was he being discriminatory? Yes...BUT, marriage between same sex couples is not legal within the state. As a result, the state would have a tough time pushing such a case without creating an interesting side case about marriage equality as well. Maybe they do want to shake things up. If the state does, I think it's great. If not, I understand too--from a legal perspective.

    Furthermore, the owner could state that the Oregon law is discriminating against his first amendment right to free religious expression. This might sound crazy (and it just might be), but he could argue that the state has no right to supercede federal law by forcing him to run a business that forces him to violate his religious beliefs. While I would disagree with him vehemently, he may have a winnable case if he takes that tactic.

    (No, I don't support this jack ass bakery owner winning his casr. I'm just getting my point out there that it's not an open and shut case.)


    The problem with this is argument is....us. Tell me, if Bill and I, who are married, set foot in Oregon, would we be arrested? If not, then the bakery is discriminating.


    Why would be arrested? I'm not saying it's right. I'm only saying that it's legally difficult for the state of Oregon to uphold the law in this case considering the state is in of itself being discriminatory.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Feb 04, 2013 5:04 PM GMT
    msuNtx said
    Medjai saidThis is stupid. I don't think any business should be legally forced to serve anyone they aren't happy to serve. There are always other bakeries...

    This just creates a precedent that a business is legally obligated to support a marriage they are morally opposed to or they get the pants used off them. Does forcing morality ever help? No. It makes those for feel better and those against hate even more. The only way this could have gone without that was to make a public statement about this bakery, but peruse no action. The capitalist system would have sorted it out, not the legal one.


    This has nothing to do with marriage. This is about not serving someone because they are themselves gay. This is along the same lines as not serving someone because they are black, because they don't like black people. It is illegal.


    They already made a statement that it was the marriage, not the sexuality, that they denied the cake based on. It has everything to do with marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 5:09 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    msuNtx said
    Medjai saidThis is stupid. I don't think any business should be legally forced to serve anyone they aren't happy to serve. There are always other bakeries...

    This just creates a precedent that a business is legally obligated to support a marriage they are morally opposed to or they get the pants used off them. Does forcing morality ever help? No. It makes those for feel better and those against hate even more. The only way this could have gone without that was to make a public statement about this bakery, but peruse no action. The capitalist system would have sorted it out, not the legal one.


    This has nothing to do with marriage. This is about not serving someone because they are themselves gay. This is along the same lines as not serving someone because they are black, because they don't like black people. It is illegal.


    They already made a statement that it was the marriage, not the sexuality, that they denied the cake based on. It has everything to do with marriage.


    So they should also be able to not serve a black couple because they don't believe in interracial marriage ? Again its because they are gay. The statement they made is irrelevant because gay marriage is with gay people and dealing with sexuality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2013 5:11 PM GMT
    Medjai, I love how you have a problem with American politics, guns, and what people put in their OWN bodies...but this you have no problem with...

    Kinda backwards if you ask me