My Mother Doesn't Approve Of My Lifestyle. Should I Sue Her? (Gay Couple Scored $135K Off Disapproving Christian Bakers)
I was supposed to stay in Michigan, join Temple Beth El, work at an ad agency, marry an accountant, and live in some really dull suburb like Novi. Oops.
I did find a wonderful guy from Detroit (got him in the Apple computer store at The Grove 13 years ago), but we're not married and have no plans to get married; I hightailed it to NYC ("that cesspool!", as my dad called it), and lived in a series of terrible apartments while giving free advice on a Soho street corner and rollerskating around the city and doing questionable things with questionable men.
I now live in Venice (a few houses down from a 60-something man who wears a fluorescent pink bob wig and skating skirts), write books with "F*ck" in the title, and drink wine that is not screw-top Manischewitz. (Not sure how troubling that last one is, but it does deviate from the standard Alkon family drinking practices.)
Well, disapproving of gay marriage and standing behind this by not baking a cake for a gay wedding has led to a $135K fine for a Gresham, Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein.
Oh, and I should trot out my gay rights pedigree here -- I'm for gay marriage and gays having all the same rights everybody else does, and have been blogging about that pretty much since I started blogging in around 2000. (Which is why I don't feel compelled to rainbow up my picture anywhere.)
Anyway, the couple was fined this money for the "emotional damage" they supposedly caused by telling the marrying couple no on baking a cake for them.
Oh, come the fuck on. "Emotional damage"? Because somebody doesn't approve of how you live? Mom...there will soon be a process server knocking at your door!
Scott Shackford, who, let's just say, is also not exactly a gay-hater, writes about this ridiculousness at reason:
First of all, the state agency recommended, remarkably, that the Kleins also be required to pay for the emotional damages caused to the couple by media coverage and social media reactions to the case, because the Kleins appeared in the media a couple of times to defend and explain themselves. They wanted the bakers to have to pay further because of the emotional toll of conversations and media coverage over much of which the Kleins had absolutely no control. Fortunately, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled against additional damages. The $135,000 is based just on the result of the Kleins telling the couple they would not make them a wedding cake.The second thing I want to alert folks to is the absurd way this order describes the emotional damage done to this couple. It's something to keep in mind when we talk about issues like hate speech laws and trigger warnings and whether it's appropriate to act as though the government is responsible for protecting people's feelings. Here's a chunk of the text, and there's a lot like it in the full order:
Respondent's denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn't supposed to be, and that she wasn't supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven. ... [She] interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life. She felt anger, intense sorrow, and shame. These are reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everybody else.It was a cake. A cake! She has not been rejected from society. There is no actual argument or evidence presented that their ability to live their lives fully has been impaired by one rejection. In fact, they got a free cake from semi-famous television baker Duff Goldman out of the publicity the state wanted to fine the Kleins for. She sounds like she was driven nearly to suicide because she was rejected by a couple of bakers. I wonder what would have happened if these ladies stumbled across the Phelps family somewhere. They would end up in comas!
Much of the ruling is written in this vein, even though it also acknowledges at one point that testimony from one of the women was prone to exaggeration, and she gave testimony that was contradicted by others. They only considered her testimony when it was completely undisputed or corroborated by others.
I'm an atheist. If you want to deny me service because you don't, say, think somebody who will "burn in hell" deserves to eat your food, you have at it. Your business, your creation, and despite ridiculous state laws, I don't have the (natural) right to force you to create something for me.
And as Scott rightly points out in this month's print edition of reason:
Many wedding businesses are falling all over themselves to compete in this new and potentially profitable market. There is little indication that gay couples actually need the government to force resistant religious bakers to fire up their mixers in order to have the wedding of their dreams.
The court's order -- forcing the Kleins to pay $75K to one member of the couple and $60K to the other -- is like a signal to people who are gay to abuse business owners of faith the way a few rotten people in wheelchairs abuse the Americans with Disabilities Act to score cash off businesses (like a hamburger stand that was forced to close when the owner didn't have the money to bring the restrooms up to ADA code).
"while giving free advice on a Soho street corner"
Ha! I remember when you used to do that; I thought it was kinda weird - but weird in a cool way.
Happy Fourth!
P.S. for whatever its worth - your Dad was right, NYC is a cesspool; but, even more so today. Jeez, I can't believe I still work there.
charles at July 4, 2015 7:16 AM
Thanks, charles -- it was really fun and I met great people!
Today, New York is a giant mall filled with chain stores you see in any mall with a few vestiges of the weird and wonderful place it used to be.
Amy Alkon at July 4, 2015 7:33 AM
Yes, you should sue your mother. Gary Coleman did it.
If someone refused me service because I'm gay (which is still legal, by the way, in states in which gays are not a protected class), I would boycott them, publicize their refusal to serve me because I'm gay (and let the free market deal with them) and otherwise take steps that would cause them to rethink their anti-gay stance. But seriously...suing for emotional damage?
Frankly, I think being forced to pay 135K in fines would be more emotionally damaging for the bakers.
That aside, just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, let me ask this: how would you feel about them having to pay to fines for refusing to bake a cake for a black or interracial couple on religious grounds?
Gays are a protected class in Oregon. That means, you have no more right to discriminate against gays than you do against blacks.
And while I think the fines are excessive, a business owner in Oregon should know better. You really do need to know the laws regarding just who you're allowed to refuse service. And when a gay couple comes in and you want some idea as to what would happen to you if you refused them service on the basis of their sexuality, you simply ask yourself, "How much trouble would I be in if a black person walked in and I said, 'Hit the road, nigger! We don't serve your kind!'"?
That's precisely how much trouble you'll be in for refusing to serve gay people in Oregon.
(Hey, I don't make the laws. I'm just reporting them.)
Patrick at July 4, 2015 8:01 AM
If you are forced to do something you don't agree with or want to do, like bake a cake, does the law state that it must taste good ??
davyg at July 4, 2015 8:20 AM
As I recall at the time of incident the state of Oregon did not recognize same sex marriage.
The original decision was made by an administrative law judge. No right to a jury trial. The decision was ratified by the head of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The Bureau of Labor and Industries was in regular contact with same sex advocates.
The bakers can seek review by a Circuit Court.
Bill O Rights at July 4, 2015 8:49 AM
I am not thoroughly familiar with this case, but I think that the bakers simply refused to do the kind of cake which the gay couple wanted, which was some kind of a "gay rights" cake. That is not the same as "refusing service." If a Jewish baker will not make a cake for a Muslim person which is supposed to say, "Hamas rules!," does he get fined? If a Black baker doesn't want to make a cake which has a confederate flag on it, he is sued out of business existence, too?
It is one thing to stand at your business door and refuse service to someone at the outset because of his or her ethnicity or sexual identity. But because you are a baker, does this mean that you are now required to put anything on a cake which a customer wants? Vulgarities? Sexually suggestive things? Political things? This decision is actually as awful in its way as one which would force children to say prayers in school. It essentially forces the owner of a business to provide any type of service which a customer demamds.
Of course the decision is not supposed to go that far; it is deliberately meant as a politically correct advancement of "gay rights." "We'll show you what happens if you do not accede to demands to make a gay-themed cake." And the "emotional damage" rationale is ludicrous, though it is attempted quite frequently in legal cases. Maybe the bakers, religious people who disapprove of gay marriage (and guess what; they have a right to do so), were emotionally damaged by the state essentially forcing them to bake the cake. But that is not the "right kind" of emotional damage; that is reserved for affronted "minority groups." And didn't the gay person actually demand this cake just to make a point; just to attempt to force the bakers to grovel and do what he wanted? I think I read that as well. Well, for that attempt, he pocketed $135,000 and probably drove the bakers out of business. The next person will go into a bakery and demand a cake saying, "Heterosexuals are scum; the entire worls should be gay." Don't put that on, and you're out of business, too.
William at July 4, 2015 8:57 AM
Bill O is correct. At the time, Oregon did not recognize gay marriage. The irony, it burns.
LauraGr at July 4, 2015 9:00 AM
Bill O Rights: As I recall at the time of incident the state of Oregon did not recognize same sex marriage.
Please note, I did not say that Oregon recognized same sex marriage. I said that they considered gays a protected class, and they do. You might think it's absurd to regard sexual orientation as protected status while not recognizing same sex marriage, that is nonetheless what happened here.
As a matter of fact, Oregon did not recognize same sex marriage at all (until the SCOTUS decision Obergefell v. Hodges forced them to).
You might be suggesting that they shouldn't be compelled to make a wedding cake for a couple that can't get married in the eyes of the law, but you'd be mistaken. You can buy a wedding for any purpose. You could buy a wedding cake because you want a huge doorstop that will attracts ants. No law dictates that it has to be used for a legally recognized wedding.
Patrick at July 4, 2015 9:02 AM
Agree w/Patrick in that business owners in Oregon should know the law 'cause, you know OREGON.
Plus I am not sympathetic to businesses in the sense that SCOTUS was in the Hobby Lobby case. It's a thing (store, service, product), not a person.
I also think bullies should be very careful about who they bully. Predicting how someone will respond is tricky. You can open a door that someone has shut pretty tight and you might like what you get. The Golden Rule protects both sides.
There are many of us that will now say "Go ahead. Cut her throat. I'm still going to stop you just 'cause you've screwed up my day."
Bob in Texas at July 4, 2015 9:11 AM
Probably.
If you put Sriracha sauce in the cake, you'd probably be open to a discrimination suit.
Conan the Grammarian at July 4, 2015 9:28 AM
Patrick it is quite a leap to conclude that refusing to make a cake for a ceremony not recognized by the state is conclusive proof of discrimination based on the consumer's sexual orientation. I suspect if the bakers had been asked to make birthday cake they would have done it. So are they discriminating against the persons or the activity.
Bill O Rights at July 4, 2015 9:42 AM
Everyone involved in this dispute is awful.
Kevin at July 4, 2015 9:45 AM
Bill O Rights: Patrick it is quite a leap to conclude that refusing to make a cake for a ceremony not recognized by the state is conclusive proof of discrimination based on the consumer's sexual orientation.
Not if the bakers in question are dumb enough to actually say that they don't believe in gay marriage on religious grounds. We don't have to make any leaps, Bill. They said it.
From the link (with added emphasis):
Patrick at July 4, 2015 10:01 AM
I also find it amusing and sad at the same time that the Kleins are going to continue their legal battle. Sure. Bring it right to the Supreme Court. We know how that's going to go.
Patrick at July 4, 2015 10:10 AM
Patrick you raise a valid question of fact. On the other hand the Kleins have also been reported to say,
"'This was not the first time we’ve served these girls,' said Aaron, maintaining their refusal was not about the couple’s sexual orientation, but rather, about their religious convictions."
Of course, on those putative previous transactions I suspect they were unaware the individuals were homosexual.
So, I honestly cannot say, without additional research, whether the Kleins were discriminating based on sexual orientation of the individuals or simply refusing to provide a specific item for a ceremony not recognized by the state.
Bill O Rights at July 4, 2015 10:29 AM
I saw a meme about this...
Go ahead, eat the cake you forced me to make for you. I dare you.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 4, 2015 10:35 AM
Gay marriage was not legal at the time, therefore it could be argued that they were refusing to provide their services to an illegal activity.
Since one got $75K but the other only got $60K, are they going to sue for discrimination that one was deemed less worthy and less of a person than the other by not being equally awarded?
BunnyGirl at July 4, 2015 10:45 AM
I hate to keep belaboring this point, but there's just one aspect of this case that bothers me.
I likened this to refusing service to a black couple on religious grounds, or an interracial marriage on religious grounds. And as far as Oregon (or any other state that recognizes homosexuals as a protected class) is concerned, that comparison is legit.
But the thing that bothers me is that, had the Kleins actually refused service to an interracial couple not a single one of you would have a problem with them being fined right out of existence.
I'd venture to say, had the Kleins refused service to an interracial couple, you'd be cheering the state's ruling. And you'd applaud for every penny that the couple managed to sue them for. "They deserved it, the racist bigots."
But when it's a gay couple, even those of you who support gay marriage are a little more queasy about it. You're springing to their defense about their religious beliefs. You wouldn't be so tolerant of their religion if their religion told them that blacks are inferior or preached against interracial marriage.
And finally, while everyone's feeling sorry for the Kleins, I can't help but notice that no one has jumped on them for their melodramatic, pathetic ploy for sympathy.
As they sob uncontrollably on Facebook: “This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”
Being told that certain topics are off-limits for discussion due to a court order is not depriving you of freedom of speech. It's telling you not to discuss one particular topic. You're free to express your fool heads off about anything else you choose. And you aren't the first person to be issued a gag order (or even to be told by your lawyer that it would be detrimental to your case to discuss certain things). It happens to people who serve on juries all the time.
As for their freedom of religion, the law has established since the inception of the nation that it will prohibit certain practices in this country and your religion does not exempt you from the law. That's why Mormons and Muslims may not engage in plural marriage. Yes, it's allowed, even encouraged by their religion, but it is not allowed by U.S. law. Hence, Mormons and Muslims who live here are not allowed multiple wives. Rastafarians might believe that marijuana enhances their spirituality. Tough cookies. The laws against marijuana remain in effect.
And the laws in Oregon do not allow to discriminate against homosexuals. It's not telling you that you can't hold whatever religion you want. Only that your religious observation of discriminating against homosexuals is not going to fly.
I ask, only out of curiosity, just how big a river do you want to cry for these people? These idiots who are so dumb that they didn't know that gays became a protected class in their state? Do they live in caves where no radio contact can reach them? To they never talk to any of their customers about current events?
These self-styled martyrs who wail about their supposed loss of free speech and freedom of religion, when in fact, neither one of these freedoms has been lost?
And again, how much sympathy would have for these fools if they turned away a black couple or an interracial couple, citing religious objections?
Because some of you don't get it. In Oregon, for purposes of legally protected status, gays are every bit as protected as blacks. You discriminate against a gay person in Oregon (or any other state that sees sexual orientation as a protected status), you can expect the exact same consequences in the law as if you discriminated against a black person.
Patrick at July 4, 2015 10:52 AM
Ugh. I was going to walk away from this discussion, but I think Bill O Rights does have a very valid point. There is an intrinsic difference between refusing a particular service, as opposed to refusing service altogether.
A friend of mine who just passed his bar exam said that they aren't violating discrimination laws on the basis of refusing to make them a wedding cake. Discrimination would be (or should be) if they refused service of any kind.
Like say they came in and wanted to buy some of those yummy cupcakes in the window or ordered a birthday cake for their niece. If they were thrown out of the store altogether because the Kleins said, "We don't serve dykes," that would be discrimination.
It seems that a gate has been opened with this and similar cases. Discrimination now means that you can't refuse any service to any protected class.
Patrick at July 4, 2015 10:59 AM
Also, the Kleins were friends with the couple already. They knew they were gay and on the flip side the couple knew the Kleins were against gay marriage for religious reasons. They thought thay'd still make them one anyway because of the friendship, then got butthurt when that wasn't the case. I haven't been able to verify this, but I've heard several times from different sources that when the cake tasting appointment was made they made it under the mother's name and the assumption was that it was the mother getting married.
BunnyGirl at July 4, 2015 11:03 AM
BunnyGirl: Gay marriage was not legal at the time, therefore it could be argued that they were refusing to provide their services to an illegal activity.
Hmmmm...it's not really an illegal activity. It's a just a wedding that the law would not recognize as having created a marriage.
They weren't selling crack. They were having basically a private party which affirmed their commitment to each other. The law will simply not recognize this marriage. But a SWAT team is not going to come in to bust up a gay marriage ceremony.
No, you can't declare you're legally married (at least not getting the benefits of being legally married), but you can have a private party (and a ceremony in any church that will have you) to exchange vows, even if the state will recognize the marriage.
I object to the classification of a gay marriage ceremony as an "illegal activity." You also get baptized in church. Does the state recognize you as a baptized person now? That doesn't mean baptism is "illegal."
Patrick at July 4, 2015 11:07 AM
If someone refused me service because I'm gay (which is still legal, by the way, in states in which gays are not a protected class), I would boycott them, publicize their refusal to serve me because I'm gay (and let the free market deal with them) and otherwise take steps that would cause them to rethink their anti-gay stance. But seriously...suing for emotional damage?
I'd do the same -- and I'd picket them with you, Patrick.
But though I personally think belief in god is irrational (and even childish), I fully support what should be a person's right to not violate their beliefs (except, say, in cases of an emergency room doctor doing heterosexuality checks or religion checks before deciding whether he'll save the dying).
Amy Alkon at July 4, 2015 11:28 AM
You wouldn't be so tolerant of their religion if their religion told them that blacks are inferior or preached against interracial marriage.
I'd think they were rotten people (and I'd picket them) but I'd still defend their right to not do creative work that violates their beliefs.
Amy Alkon at July 4, 2015 11:29 AM
Thank you for being consistent, Amy. I still question those who are so outraged over this as to whether they'd be similarly outraged at the Kleins' treatment by the law had they refused black people on religious grounds.
Patrick at July 4, 2015 11:41 AM
"A friend of mine who just passed his bar exam said that they aren't violating discrimination laws on the basis of refusing to make them a wedding cake. Discrimination would be (or should be) if they refused service of any kind."
Current federal laws, no, they are not violating a federal law, but it is quite possible to violate state accommodation laws, and get fined for it, which was the case in New Mexico, and possibly in Oregon also.
Isab at July 4, 2015 11:45 AM
This was clearly about the event, and not the people. There was no discrimination against gays. Instead, there was a refusal to "speak" about (via undertaking a particular action), and thus to participate in and support, a "gay wedding" -- which at the time was a legal impossibility and sham, as well as being morally objectionable to the bakers.
On the other side, we see that "equality" is not enough, as it turns out. Celebration of homosexuality and advocacy of gay interests is now required -- if one is to avoid being castigated as a "bigot" and financially crucified.
We are seeing the results of "forced tolerance." It is not much of a moral or societal victory when those that disagree with you but are willing to tolerate the disagreement are legally compelled to applaud when you walk by? ("My, aren't WE popular!)
If anyone has been deprived of their rights, it is the bakers. Freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.
Finally, regarding Patrick's misguided (but well-meaning) attempt to analogize this situation to a black couple, this is not a situation where the couple comes into the store to buy cupcakes in the display and are refused -- which would be discrimination. Instead, this is a black couple asking for a cake that says "Cops deserve to die for their racism!" to be consumed at a militant rally. Are the bakers displaying prejudice and animosity against black people if they refuse to make that cake -- which expresses a legally protected opinion, but one with which the bakers vehemently disagree and consider immoral?
Where will this end?
Jay R at July 4, 2015 11:54 AM
Jay R: Finally, regarding Patrick's misguided (but well-meaning) attempt to analogize this situation to a black couple,
I have to take issue with the idea that I'm anagolizing it. I'm not making it comparable to discrimination against black people. The law is. As I said, in states which see homosexuality as a protected status (not saying it's right; not saying it's wrong), you could no more discriminate against a gay guy than you could a black guy.
And as Isab points out, and I wasn't aware of, while they are not violating a federal law, they could be violating a state accommodation law. People who believe that cops all deserve to die for their racism probably do not enjoy protected status.
And the whole refusing to bake a "Cops deserve to die for their racism" cake would not be discriminating against blacks...unless you believe that every black person holds that opinion and moreover, that such opinions are innate to black people. Obviously, that is ridiculous.
Patrick at July 4, 2015 12:09 PM
If I were the judge I would just give a giant settlement of 1 gift cerificate for two slices of cake from a neighborhood bakery.I Not the whole cake because people usually only eat one slice so the couple didn't get to enjoy two slices.
That way I would be an asshole to everyone.
But I know nothing about law (like most judges har har).
Ppen at July 4, 2015 12:56 PM
Patrick,
The problem with protected classes is they are inherently discriminatory. So once you have accepted that concept you aren't arguing for equal rights but instead for the government to discriminate how you want instead of how someone else wants.
Also, you claimed earlier "had the Kleins actually refused service to an interracial couple not a single one of you would have a problem with them being fined right out of existence."
This is demonstrably false. Many people on this blog (myself included) have taken the position that individuals should have the right to refuse such service. There were even discussions over the reality of jim crow vs. the current popular story.
I say the government should not have the right to discriminate but individuals should. It is a heck of a better argument than the government must discriminate to stop discrimination which underlies protected classes.
Ben at July 4, 2015 1:20 PM
Ben, I agree with what you said, actually.
As I said, I don't make the law. I just report it.
Perhaps it's time for us to end protected classes. However, I'm not sure they didn't serve a needed purpose at the time they were created. Blacks might have found it very difficult to live and get essential services or medical care, get a job or buy food had the anti-discrimination laws not been in place.
I doubt gay people are facing such discrimination now. I'm sure there's a bakery somewhere in the area that would make a cake for my same-sex wedding should I decide to have one. But I live in Tampa Bay, which has a population of 4.2 million as of 2011. That's a population greater than almost half of the states.
As for the people on this blog...well, you say so. But, just to point out, I've been posting on this blog since the day it started. In the fifteen years I've been here, since before gay marriage became such a contentious issue, I don't remember any stories about how a store refused service to a black person or an interracial couple, and the blog erupting in protest that people have a right to their biases.
A person's right to discriminate only seems to come up when we're discussing gay rights.
Patrick at July 4, 2015 3:08 PM
Patrick,
I try very hard to be logically consistent. I am human.I like to believe that if a white person went to a black owned bakery and ordered a cake supporting racial profiling that I would support the right of the baker to refuse.
I am also concerned that in this case the state was investigator,prosecutor, jury and judge.
I would usually have to file suit, prove intentional infliction of emotional distress and convince a jury.
Bill O Rights at July 4, 2015 4:54 PM
Lots of good stuff here, including from Patrick IMHO.
I personally hope that eventually some business coalitions get started among professional bakers, florists, and what not. I would love to see partnerships emerge among conservative and liberal businesspeople. When a gay couple wants a cake the conservative baker could outsource the job to a partner liberal baker, and when the liberal baker gets, for instance, a request for a Confederate Flag cake they could outsource the job to a conservative baker.
qdpsteve at July 4, 2015 5:08 PM
Sigh.
From Wikipedia:
"Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit."
So this fine was/is intended to drive the last nail into the coffin of "No. I will not make a cake for your wedding." actions by very dumb bakers.
Whether it was fair or deserved is not relevant 'cause obviously gays (correct me if I'm wrong here Patrick") are exceptionally sensitive people that really really really like their cake.
Bob in Texas at July 4, 2015 5:35 PM
Out of curiosity, should I be able to demand a halal butcher provide me with bacon?
IMHO that was the idea of getting gay marriage accepted by the government, rather than getting the govt OUT of marriage all together...
because now you can use the govt to force acceptance, or punishment... I believe this will get worse. :Shrug:
SwissArmyD at July 4, 2015 5:53 PM
Patrick: "Being told that certain topics are off-limits for discussion due to a court order is not depriving you of freedom of speech. It's telling you not to discuss one particular topic. You're free to express your fool heads off about anything else you choose."
Joseph Sobran: "Freedom has ceased to be a birthright; it has come to mean whatever we are still permitted to do."
Ken R at July 4, 2015 9:44 PM
The problem with letting the free market decide is I can easily envision scenarios where it is more socially acceptable to refuse service to some groups than it is to serve them, and so those groups can't buy cake anywhere.
Personally if I had a magic-law-making wand I'd make it so bakeries had to serve anyone but could refuse certain decorations or messages. So they'd have to bake a cake, but the couple would have to write "happy wedding Nan and Jan" themselves
NicoleK at July 5, 2015 1:22 AM
My mom doesn't approve of my lifestyle either, I should have been an elegant urban business woman, but I am a frumpy, rural, SAHM. (I might be able to be a bit more elegant in a uear or two when I am not getting spit up on so much?
NicoleK at July 5, 2015 1:25 AM
I still think Amy should sue her mom.
Patrick at July 5, 2015 3:45 AM
NicoleK,
As an "old white guy" that's been married a few times and raised his/her kids I can tell you that as far as your husband is concerned it's all in your mind.
Take a bubble bath w/o interruptions (I know a night away from home),
put on something/anything from Victoria's Secret (tame but start slow so you don't scare your husband), and
(assuming your husband is still awake from relaxing in the quiet after a few beers) simply tell him "This one's for you Big Boy." and then take a nap.
You'll be missing the kids before dawn and he'll be grinning.
Bob in Texas at July 5, 2015 5:25 AM
Oh, we manage to keep our love life active (in fact if I hang out in just a sports bra he is totally fine with that, or a tight tank, as long as there is cleavage), he is happy, it is my mom who isn't. Hunny if fine with tacky if there is cleavage involved. Mom is all about good taste
But thanks for the tips!
NicoleK at July 5, 2015 6:23 AM
I think many people tend to look upon gay-straight differently than they do black-white. One is known to be genetic, the other is thought to be.
For a long time, gay behavior was thought to be a choice and gay men were looked upon as effeminate wimps. Until Stonewall, gay men and women hid their sexual orientation from society, partly out of fear and partly out of shame. Efforts by gays and straights to change that have effected a seismic shift in society's outlook on the subject.
While our understanding of what makes someone gay has expanded, not everyone has kept up with that. For many, it is still an emotional response - a knee-jerk reaction.
Add to that religions that make a great noise about homosexuality being immoral and your average semi-religious straight person is caught in a bind. How does he please a God he's been told hates homosexuality and a society that screams at him to accept gays as normal?
Conan the Grammarian at July 5, 2015 11:38 AM
Patrick,
From the economic and personal histories I've seen around when the pro-black discriminatory laws were put into place they actually retarded the economic growth of the black community. You see the same effect today in other communities too. When you have a significant increase of government influence for a specific group there is a drop in economic growth. Essentially when the government picks the winners and the losers people intelligently stop competing. Quality suffers and productivity drops. Why work harder than you have to? And why play a rigged game where you are guaranteed to loose?
As for it being necessary to 'balance the scales', Jim Crow was government preventing white businesses from selling to black customers. Were there businesses that wanted to discriminate, yes! But there were also businesses that wanted to increase market share and sales not caring what their customers looked like. Ending governmental discrimination was vital. But (in my view) going beyond that harmed the intended beneficiaries.
As for Oregon state law, I can't say. I don't know much about their laws. What the baker did may have been illegal. What the couple did was definitely immoral.
Ben at July 5, 2015 4:47 PM
Conan: your average semi-religious straight person is caught in a bind. How does he please a God he's been told hates homosexuality and a society that screams at him to accept gays as normal?
It's only a "bind" for an average semi-religious straight person who puts faith in a "holy book" on a par with reason and humanity.
JD at July 5, 2015 11:54 PM
Patrick,
According to the baker's attorneys, the couple that brought the case against them were long time customers, and the bakery had done other cakes for them in the past, but due to this one being a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, they felt it was against their religious beliefs to make it. That's the circle I can't square in this case. Clearly, they served the couple in the past, and didn't care if they were gay, they only didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage. It's a very subtle difference, but I fall on the side that says if they clearly didn't discriminate against that customer due to their sexual orientation in the past, and only refuse service based on their religious beliefs for a particular event, they are within their rights, since if a cake was required for anything except a gay marriage, it would have been provided.
SPQR2008 at July 6, 2015 6:47 AM
"Respondent's denial of service made her feel..."
Putting aside the issue at hand for a moment, this paragraph was one of the worst pieces of schlock writing I've ever read. Did they hire a ninth-grade emo to write it?
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2015 7:53 AM
Some, even very well-meaning ones, do.
Conan the Grammarian at July 6, 2015 9:12 AM
I don't want you to take this the wrong way, and I mean this in the best way possible, but the people who sue wedding bakers should be shot or at least beaten. If we all are supposed to support gays in all the big things, gays can support religious people in a little thing like a cake. There are plenty of bakers to go to. You're not being deprived. Not one little bit.
Alan at July 7, 2015 12:22 PM
Leave a comment