I'm An Atheist Who Thinks It's Terrible That The "No Cake" Makers Just Paid Out Over $135K
I am an atheist (and a staunch gay rights supporter).
I think it's silly to believe, sans evidence, in a big man in the sky and to follow the tenets said Big Man's followers laid out in a big book. This includes those tenets that lead people to believe that gay people are doing something wrong by doing what the rest of us do: Meet and pair up with the person we love.
Well, I am also an atheist and gay rights supporter who very much supports the freedom from the state forcing us to do work that violates religious beliefs -- including those I find silly. If you are not, say, an emergency room doctor, the state should not be telling you that you have to do work for any person who shows up at your business.
Well, states have come down hard on Christian bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings and other businesses refusing to serve gay couples. I find their refusals disgusting, hurtful, and backward -- along with un-Christian, per the way Jesus talked and did things -- but again, they should have the right to refuse and not be fined for it by the state.
Forcing expression -- like forced creative work for a couple whose marriage violates your beliefs -- is a violation of the First Amendment. That gives us the right to free speech, not to force others to speak. Freedom of religion is another part of it. Again, violated by these states that have come down on the Christian bakers.
Well, there's a story at Fox News that also mentions that there was a gag order imposed on the bakers in Oregon. That's just terrible on top of terrible.
Except -- whoops -- Walter Olson, at Ricochet, points out that it's actually not a gag order:
Contrary to some early reports in the conservative press, this is not really a "gag order" that strips the Kleins of "all [their] First Amendment rights," "silences" them "from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings" or even forbids them "from talking about the ruling." But even leaving the exaggerations aside, the case includes elements that should genuinely alarm free speech advocates.
The ruling ordered the Kleins to:
...Cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.
So, it's more of an order along the lines of "no shirt, no shoes, no service," but that's still a violation of what should be their rights.
But here, per Walter, is the way this played out:
[The State of Oregon] chose to go after the Kleins over appearances they did in national conservative media, and over having posted a sign on their closed business thanking supporters and promising to continue the fight. (They continue to sell cakes they bake at home.) Included as subjects of this complaint were national media interviews in which the Kleins, along with statements about what had gone through their mind when they turned down the lesbian couple's request, added a few forward-looking statements such as "we can see this becoming an issue and we have to stand firm." The window posting, meanwhile, included the language "This fight is not over. We will continue to stay strong. Your religious freedom is becoming not free anymore. It is ridiculous that we cannot practice our faith."Remarkably, as Scott Shackford noted at Reason, both the state agency and Avakian -- see pp. 22-26 of his ruling -- interpreted these statements as unambiguously announcing a forward-looking intent to discriminate in future transactions. Avakian's ruling neither notices nor engages the objection that speech by the targets of a government enforcement action seeking to rally public support for their cause might need more careful First Amendment handling than the announcement of, say, a gender preference in a classified ad.
Even more remarkably, the state agency had demanded damages from the Kleins over the very fact of media coverage sympathetic to their cause, which was said to have inflicted further trauma on their adversaries' eggshell psyches. While Avakian declined to grant a separate award of damages under this heading, he still declared the Kleins' statements in their own defense "unlawful."
The implication is clear enough: if locked in a legal battle with Oregon authorities, you may not have a legal right to rally your supporters with statements like "This fight is not over" and "We will continue to stay strong."
Increasingly, the America we're living in is seriously scary. We're going down bad paths -- rights-erasing paths -- at many turns, and too few people seem to notice or care. It's easy to just shrug off one violation of rights but if you look at the whole, we're in real trouble.
Fox story via @NealMcCluskey
If people can refuse to do business with gay couples under religious principles, would you say that the following are also OK?
- won't do business with Jews
- won't do business with Mormons
- won't do business with interracial couples
- won't do business with gingers
If not, how are these different?
Discriminy Cricket at December 29, 2015 6:16 AM
As long as I get to decide what's right or wrong I'm good Discriminy Cricket.
Since I don't know you I find your comments to be a microagression and BAN YOU from da 'net.
We here in the USA have something called a 'free market'. You might have heard of it. You can shop wherever you want based on your own criteria.
Some people base their shopping on pricing or convenience or even whether they like the owners.
I also do not support your Islamophobia and fear of Baptists (left them off your list).
Bob in Texas at December 29, 2015 6:58 AM
So Bob those no blacks served signs from Jim Crow are cool then. Free markets, amirite?
DC at December 29, 2015 7:09 AM
So Bob those no blacks served signs from Jim Crow are cool then. Free markets, amirite?
Discriminy Cricket at December 29, 2015 7:11 AM
Yes, Discriminatory Cricket, if a business wants to be stupid enough to post such a sign, let 'em. I know it's trendy and hip today to pretend that the First Amendment doesn't mean what it says, regarding either the rights of free speech or the rights of free association. But, like the Second Amendment, it's still in there.
Cousin Dave at December 29, 2015 7:20 AM
This is NOT a case about refusing to do business with someone you don't agree with or do not like; This was about refusing to provide a creative service for something that you disagree with.
From what I understand these bakers did not refuse to sell any of their baked goods to gays or anyone else. What they refused to do was provide a creative baked good for an event that they felt went against their religious beliefs. No matter how stupid anyone else thinks their beliefs are, they should still have that right to not engage in an event that makes them feel uncomfortable.
This is not the same as refusing to sell to someone who walked into their bakery to buy already made goods.
This would be the same, or should be the same under the law, if a nudist couple asked a baker to bake a cake and place a couple of nude plastic people on top. That baker would have, and should have, every right to refuse to bake such a cake. Sure, I can bake you a cake; but, place your own nude plastic people on top.
To use a more extreme example - a Jewish baker would have the right, and should have the right, to refuse to bake a cake for a neo-Nazi praising Hitler. Seriously, who would demand that a Jewish baker MUST bake such a cake? Other than a fascist I mean.
As far as the "gag" order goes; that is truly disgusting. Typically, a gag order was to protect an ongoing police investigation or something similar. e.g., a gag order on the press to prevent non-disclosed information from tipping off the criminals that the police may be on to them.
But, this "gag" order seems more like punishing the bakers as well as stifling public discussion on this sensitive and controversial topic. Very un-first amendment.
Just wait, those who have pushed this thing through and those who have praised it will one day get burnt by it. A gay business will be forced to provide a service to an event that is anti-gay and then the winds of public opinion will shift.
That's why we have laws and should enforce them equally. Not enforce them based upon who/what is popular that day which seems to have been the case here.
charles at December 29, 2015 7:24 AM
"We're going down bad paths -- rights-erasing paths -- at many turns."
Indeed. And make no mistake, this was the Left's plan all along. They were never really opposed to dictatorial government. They were only opposed to someone other than them being the dictator.
Cousin Dave at December 29, 2015 7:24 AM
DC - When did you decide that the Constitution was a requirement for citizen behavior?
In case you failed Civics class, can't read or are from another country, the Constitution is a set of rules for our government to follow.
Forcing the individual - and her business - to do the things, increasing in number somehow, which are found to be Constitutionally required is a FINE way to socialize the entire economy.
Do you have an ADA-compliant bathroom in your home? Why not? You're required to have one at your business; the contractor engaged in trade with the general public when he bought the house, and as you know, you may not choose who rents your home, should you decide to rent it, if the applicant can pay.
Yep. I want Patrick to rent my house, because he's a PITA who is picky and is gay. Oops! I can't say that!
That's what YOU want. How does that feelz?
How well is the American government doing, hamstrung as it is from making good decisions because they are politically incorrect?
But don't miss the part in bold.
Radwaste at December 29, 2015 7:27 AM
I am still waiting for a Muslim business person to be subjected to this.
Also this is a case about due process. Oregon's Dept of Labor investigated the case. Then an Administrative Law "Judge" rendered a decision, which in effect was advisory, because the Secretary of the Labor Department issued the final order.
It is obvious from comments made by Mr. Avakian and excessive penalty that he was intent on making an example of these individuals. Mr. Avakian is now running for Governor.
Furthermore, the money awarded goes to the homosexual couple. It sure would be nice if the state of Oregon would handle all future lawsuits I would like to pursue.
Bill O Rights at December 29, 2015 7:31 AM
So Bob those no blacks served signs from Jim Crow are cool then. Free markets, amirite?
How quickly people forget history.
Those werent free market, they were laws passed by local, regional, and state governments FORCING business owners to segregate under the rule of law.
lujlp at December 29, 2015 8:09 AM
How quickly we forget blog history, too... Here's Crid's Five Cake Test™:
"OK, so let's say I lived in Indiana, and I wanted a pretty, three-layer, wedding-style cake that said "Women Should be Barefoot and Pregnant," with cute little cartoon frosting footprints leading into a kitchen, which frankly, needed tidying up a bit. Would that be cool? Would the law require the baker to make me that cake?
Or how 'bout one that said "Black People Don't Deserve to Vote," with decorative icing in the pattern of an inner-city American without a job on an impoverished street corner. Would the baker have to make that cake? What if it was supposed to say "Blacks Should be Slaves Again," with a little smiley face under a cracking whip?
Ok, let's do one for the mentally retarded. The cake shows... Aw, imagine for yourself. Does the baker in Indiana have to make the cake for me?
Just two more! Stay with me!
Let's say you lived in Indiana and wanted a layer cake decorated to say "Indianapolis Colts Suck! Cincinnati Bengals Rule!" with little a football tumbling through goalposts over green icing. Should law compel the baker to decorate your cake?
OK, the last one, and it'll be the best...
Let's say that, as part of your religious practice, you wanted a cake that said "The Best Men Should Have More Than One Wife!," and then the frosting cartoon shows a bunch of mutually-bitchy women sitting around one very, very happy man. Should Indiana law require you to make that cake?
…And I ask because throughout history, there's been a lot more enthusiasm for polygamy than for "gay marriage." A LOT more. It's a human tradition with deep literature stretching across continents and back through the mists of time, whereas gay marriage is essentially unheard of.
So I'm wondering about the cakes.
The problem is much bigger than Indiana... It includes Clinton-era Federal statutes."
Now and then, dude abides!
Radwaste at December 29, 2015 9:04 AM
Just reading this and am amused, again, by the abundance of redundant terms in legalese. Such as "lewd and lascivious conduct." I defy anyone to be lewd without being lascivious or vice versa.
"Null and void" is another. "Depose and swear." "Arbitrary and capricious."
Patrick at December 29, 2015 9:38 AM
FYI:
Brad Avakian has a website:
http://www.bradavakian.com/
While it is not politically correct to say, the guy comes across as a putz, a complete f&cking putz. And all of his causes are leftwing sh&t jobs.
Will he come after me for saying so? If he does, I guess I'll have to start a GoFundMe campaign.
charles at December 29, 2015 10:07 AM
Makes you wonder if someone tried to argue they weren't the same, eh Patrick. A 'Hey the agreement was only null, not void, so now you have to abide by it anyways'. Or 'The cops deposed me, but I didn't swear by my statements. They were all made up.'
Ben at December 29, 2015 10:08 AM
@ Bill O Rights, who wrote:
'I am still waiting for a Muslim business person to be subjected to this.'
Your wait is over. An undercover reporter from Reason magazine went down Michigan Avenue in Dearborn, MI, into multiple bakeries identified by signage and affect as being of Middle-Eastern ownership and operation, and asked for the same thing - a cake with a pro-gay-rights message.
Uniform answer - No. Won't do that.
Interest of Michigan civil-rights enforcement authority in the situation- Nil.
Find the video footage at Reason.com. Working off phone right now, search difficult.
Happy to end your wait.
llater,
llamas
llamas at December 29, 2015 10:24 AM
@ Discriminy Cricket, who wrote:
'If people can refuse to do business with gay couples under religious principles, would you say that the following are also OK?
- won't do business with Jews
- won't do business with Mormons
- won't do business with interracial couples
- won't do business with gingers
As long as the 'won't do business with' is the decision of the owner of the business, and not a regulation imposed by the state - Yes, in my opinion, that is perfectly fine, and the state has no business telling private individuals or businesses how to deal with each other, or whether to deal with each other at all.
The STATE should treat all individuals equally and without discrimination of any kind. All persons have the same civil rights and capacities before the state. But what people do among themselves is no business of the state.
The concept of private businesses as 'public accommodations', subject to civil rights laws, is a bastard child of the Supreme Court, which has no basis in the Constitution. By definition, 'civil rights' are the rights you have in relation to the state, which has no private-property rights and must treat all equally. But if a business owner declines to extend his business to you, for any reason he chooses, or no reason at all, that is between you and him, and nobody else.
llater,
llamas
llamas at December 29, 2015 10:36 AM
" What they refused to do was provide a creative baked good for an event that they felt went against their religious beliefs. "
Their religious beliefs are not relevant to what the law requires a business to do. They can't deny a customary service - writing on a cake - just because it's "Congrats Helen and Roberta" instead of "Helen and Bob"
"Uniform answer - No. Won't do that."
This is wrong, too, and these businesses should be sanctioned.
"The concept of private businesses as 'public accommodations', subject to civil rights laws, is a bastard child of the Supreme Court"
Which is what determines what is Constitutional.
"But if a business owner declines to extend his business to you, for any reason he chooses, or no reason at all, that is between you and him, and nobody else."
It's one thing to turn away people who are disruptive, or can't pay. It's another thing to turn down people because they hurt your imaginary friend's feels.
Discriminy cricket at December 29, 2015 11:24 AM
So Discriminy is happy to live under a dictatorship of five old men & women.
Oh well,de gustibus non est disputandum.
dee nile at December 29, 2015 12:09 PM
@ Discriminy Cricket, who wrote:
'It's one thing to turn away people who are disruptive, or can't pay. It's another thing to turn down people because they hurt your imaginary friend's feels.'
In the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens, I heard what you said, but I'm still waiting for your point? Finding two different reasons for refusing to do business with someone does not mean that one reason is legitimate, but the other is not.
In fact, of course, the only thing that should determine whether two people do business together is their mutual agreement to do so. What their reasons are for doing so, or not doing so, are no business of the state to interfere with. After all, as Crid so artfully points out, under this reasoning, the OberGruppenFuhrer of the Illinois Nazis can walk into a bakery owned by a Jewish family and order a cake decorated with the image of a swastika and the text 'Jews are Christ-killers', and that bakery will have to fulfill that order, or face the sanctions of the state. Is that what you want? Tell me how this example is 'another thing', I can't wait.
See, that's the thing with civil rights - once you let the state get involved with deciding how private individuals choose interact with each other, you have to apply the rules equally, and rigorously, else that whole idea of the 'equal protection of the laws' ends up looking very silly. And , as we see with the example of the Arab-owned bakeries which remain unmolested after doing the precise-same thing for which these Christians were fined $136,000, when you let the state decide who to punish and who not to punish for committing the precise-same acts, you turn justice into a mockery and a hostage to political whims. A state that can punish you one day for not making a cake with a pro-gay-rights message, can punish you the next day for making a cake with a pro-gay-rights message. See how that works? That's why it's much better to leave the coercive power of the state out of such matters entirely.
Your snide remark about 'hurting . . feels' ignores the fact that the only injury suffered by the grievance-searching couple who instigated this case was the hurt to their feelings. So now we have the state deciding whose feelings may be hurt and whose may not. Good luck with that.
llater,
llamas
llamas at December 29, 2015 12:10 PM
Let's assume you go to a kosher or halal butcher shop and ask for bacon, should they be forced to stock bacon?
How about you go to Whole Foods and ask for twinkies, should they be forced to sell them?
You may say no, but a men's barber shop was fined for not being willing to give ladies haircuts (which they were not trained to do).
What the cake case shows is that it is illegal to have religious views about sexual/marriage/family issues. There has been an attempt to paint those opposed to abortion in this same light, but they haven't been able to find people to fine.
Craig Loehle at December 29, 2015 12:31 PM
"Finding two different reasons for refusing to do business with someone does not mean that one reason is legitimate, but the other is not."
Exactly my point. What the names are on a cake is not legitimate.
"Tell me how this example is 'another thing', I can't wait."
Does this hypothetical Jewish bakery typically make cakes that disparage ethnic groups? If they make "Muslims are swine" cakes or similar, then probably they couldn't refuse the Nazis. If they just said, sorry, we don't do this kind of cake, ever, then there's no issue.
"And , as we see with the example of the Arab-owned bakeries which remain unmolested after doing the precise-same thing for which these Christians were fined $136,000"
Did anyone pursue them legally?
Discriminy cricket at December 29, 2015 12:33 PM
"Let's assume you go to a kosher or halal butcher shop and ask for bacon, should they be forced to stock bacon?"
No.
"How about you go to Whole Foods and ask for twinkies, should they be forced to sell them?"
No
"You may say no, but a men's barber shop was fined for not being willing to give ladies haircuts (which they were not trained to do)."
People want bad haircuts, that's their business.
"What the cake case shows is that it is illegal to have religious views about sexual/marriage/family issues."
No, it's illegal to run treat customers differently because of your religious views.
Discriminy cricket at December 29, 2015 12:36 PM
"Freedom has a one word definition, and that word is Responsibility. You are free only to the extent which you are responsible for your own life and actions, you are a slave to the extent which you are not." Patrick K Martin (with credit to David Gerrold)
You are not free when the government gets to decide you you may or may-not, must or must-not, trade with. Your business should be YOUR property and you must decide who you wish to do business with, without the government putting a gun to your head. "But they have a business license", so T.F. What? The government is supposed to be ensuring that they are not engaging in fraud or actions contrary to public safety (another discussion about whether this is desirable is possible but not here), not deciding how and why they should operate their business otherwise.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE! If others don't like it, they have a right to DISCRIMINATE against you by refusing you their custom. Don't like Walmart's labor or buying policies, don't shop there, Simple.
We are supposed to have the same rights, all of us, but we have become a society of people who have different rights, Gay rights, minority rights, Muslim rights, etc. ad nausium. This is a recipe for disaster and we are seeing that disaster play out and will continue to do so until we go back to having one law for everybody (hopefully the Constitution) or we see this nation go the way of the USSR.
Warhawke223 at December 29, 2015 1:05 PM
From Wikipedia: During the Medieval period lawyers used a mixture of Latin, French and English. To avoid ambiguity, lawyers often offered pairs of words from different languages. Sometimes there was little ambiguity to resolve and the pairs merely gave greater emphasis, becoming a stylistic habit. This is a feature of legal style that continues to the present day. Examples of mixed language doublets are: "breaking and entering" (English/French), "fit and proper" (English/French), "lands and tenements" (English/French), and "will and testament" (English/Latin). Examples of English-only doublets are "let and hindrance" and "have and hold".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_English#Style
The English language is a polyglot of German, Norman French, Latin, Gaelic, and Norwegian, all shoehorned into Latin rules. Legal English is the inevitable result of trying to be absolutely clear in communicating while using English.
=========================
Discriminy, by definition, if you said someone could resist doing business with a gay couple on religious grounds, your examples would also be covered.
But that's not what is happening here. The baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. He didn't refuse to serve gay people. He didn't say gay people were against his religion, just gay marriage, an act that had itself only recently been recognized as legal.
Conan the Grammarian at December 29, 2015 3:53 PM
"No, it's illegal to run treat customers differently because of your religious views."
Why do you think that should be the case?
Radwaste at December 29, 2015 4:17 PM
Thanks for the doublet explanation Conan.
Ben at December 29, 2015 5:17 PM
I noticed that Amy provided a carve-out, when she stated: "If you are not, say, an emergency room doctor", who would be exempt from the "freedom to discriminate" principles on behalf of private businesses.
Is this the only carve-out? Judging by Amy's usage of the word "say", is she implying that there may be more? Say, hypothetically, you have a privately owned rest stop (with food, water, gas) on a stretch of highway (and the next stop isn't for 100 miles). And this rest stop refuses to serve black people (even the hungry ones who are low on gas and need to go to the bathroom). Should they be able to freely discriminate? Inevitably, it would be the government that would be determining what those carve-outs or exceptions are -- which, of itself, will be subjective open to political pressures and bureaucracy. So, let's say the government recognizes the importance of this rest stop to all people travelling on that highway and adds them to the "exception list" - and the rest stop then claims it's being discriminated against (as no other rest stop in the county is being forced onto the "exception" list), its religious beliefs are being violated, etc. Or, how about the only pediatrician in a rural community - and the nearest one who'll treat the child of any non-Christian family practices 200 miles away?
On the other hand, why should an emergency room doctor (ERD) be wholly exempt? I mean, how about a law that gives an ERD the right to discriminate unless it's a life-threatening situation. Wouldn't that be the least intrusive to the ERD? We can leave it up the ERD to decide what's life-threatening -- and any subsequent lawsuits about whether a situation was "life threatening' can be decided on a case-by-case basis (through litigation, using up some of our tax dollars on judges' salaries) -- or the government can come up with a nice huge list defining what a "life threatening" situation is. Or, we can just say screw that - it's too complicated - out of fairness to all private businesses (and getting the government out of our hair), ERDs shouldn't be forced to be exceptions and they can just treat whomever they want - regardless of the consequences.
I'm just pointing out some complexities and other issues involved in allowing private businesses to discriminate that will, IMO, inevitably get the government involved -- just in a different way.
To be honest, I'm gay and I wouldn't want this bakery making my wedding cake - and nor would I give them any of my business. I'd rather spend my money elsewhere. And, I'd also feel free to write about their refusal to make cakes for gay weddings on a blog or on the various business-ratings sites.
As an aside, before anyone thinks the $136K is excessive in this particular case, the owners of this bakery, depending on your perspective, cleaned up. I read a couple of varying sources that they earned anywhere from $409,000 to over half a million from crowdfunding. [I'm assuming they'll be allowed to keep any excess.]
factsarefacts at December 29, 2015 5:49 PM
My view on this is, when you own or operate a business, why would you loose all civil rights and basically become a slave. A person or business should be able to refuse service for any reason.
Joe j at December 29, 2015 6:21 PM
I work in a creative medium and I say, with a forced smile, that I'll work for anyone but a Holocaust denier. I've worked for Michael Moore and Newt Gingrich and they both know that. If I cannot pick and choose my clients, then I would stop doing what I do.
I don't really understand the bakery's choice, but they absolutely have the right to not do the work.
Lincoln freed the slaves.
And who wants to eat a cake made by someone forced to bake it?
KateC at December 29, 2015 7:05 PM
DC:
"And , as we see with the example of the Arab-owned bakeries which remain unmolested after doing the precise-same thing for which these Christians were fined $136,000"
Did anyone pursue them legally?
Who would pursue them legally? I wouldn't. I prefer to keep my head attached to my body. Pursue Christians the most you might fear is a long lawsuit and maybe a lot of prayers said for your sinful ways.
Pursue Muslims you might lose your life. It ain't worth it.
charles at December 29, 2015 7:55 PM
Even though the Kleins have paid the fine, plus interest accrued from not paying it by the deadline, the state of Oregon also saw fit to steal -- I do belive that's the appropriate word -- $7,000 from Melissa Klein's personal bank accounts, one of which had money that she intended to use to tithe to her church.
The state of Oregon, it appears, has apparently slid downhill from unjust punishments to wanton cruelty
mpetrie98 at December 29, 2015 8:08 PM
Factsarefacts,
This isn't complicated. The government shouldn't have the right to discriminate between citizens. (Not people, citizens. Sorry foreigners.) We are all equal before the law. There are no first or second class citizens. No noble and serf courts. There are only citizens.
Emergency rooms don't get the right to discriminate because they are acting as agents of the government. Due to the imminent nature of emergency room service the government offers funding to cover people who cannot pay. This is to save lives when time is critical and paperwork may not be clear. In accepting this financial backing the ER is acting as an agent for the government. In doing so they lose the ability to discriminate just as the government has lost it. Organizations providing government funded welfare, can't discriminate. Organizations providing government funded services (schools are the most obvious), can't discriminate. Private groups that have nothing to do with the government, you get to keep all your personal rights and should be able to discriminate to your heart's content.
The bakery case is a perfect example of prosecutor discretion, i.e. corruption. One person was picked to make an example of. There are numerous other people who have taken the exact same stance but they were not prosecuted.
Discriminey is perfectly named. He is advocating a return to Jim Crow. He wants to pick the winners and losers. The first class citizens and the serfs. He dresses it up as nicely as he can, but it all boils down to he wants the government to enforce discrimination as long as it's his discrimination.
As for the cake makers cleaning up, doesn't sound like it. How much were their legal fees? How much was their business which is now shut down worth? How much were their future earnings worth that are now blocked by the government? Look up court cases, you should find their damages run to the multiple millions of dollars.
Ben at December 29, 2015 8:14 PM
Thanks Ben.
I wasn't aware that an emergency room is an "agent of the government" and that the government offers funding to them when patients can't pay. Could you provide statutory evidence that says so. Are you referring to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)? - because it's my understanding that the federal government doesn't actually pay for uncompensated treatment under that law (which is one of its main criticisms). But, emergency rooms certainly are required to treat all emergency patients under the law.
I certainly like your premise that the government (or its agents) shouldn't discriminate. But a lot of people don't agree with you on that part - take a look at Kim Davis' backers (including several of the Republican presidential candidates).
But are there any other instances that a private business (other than an emergency room) may affect the actual life of a customer? I came up with the rest stop in the middle of nowhere metaphor - because, the consequence of the rest stop of refusing to sell food, water, gas (or utilize the pay phone) to someone could have severe consequences on the spurned customer - even death.
Anyway, if private businesses can discriminate, would it be OK for the government to demand that they advertise their discrimination policies (like a big notice on the front door, for example) - you know, so customers won't waste their time? Sorry, I just read the ruling and this bakery attempted to do something like that voluntarily.
You are right about my "cleaning up" comment. I had assumed, wrongly, that the bakery was being represented pro bono by a Liberty Counsel-type group. But I skimmed the ruling that Amy linked to and they were represented by local Oregon counsel - and I have no idea what their legal bill is. On the other hand, the bakery couple may still make a nice chunk of change off of this whole ordeal (with the publicity it's getting); for example, an Indiana pizza parlor that stated it wouldn't cater a gay wedding (even though no gay couple actually asked them to cater their wedding) ending up making over $1 million through crowdfunding. It's also my understanding that this couple are still making cakes (just out of their home) - so they may actually get new customers out of this. They could reopen the bakery and just refuse to make any wedding cakes as well. Who knows?
factsarefacts at December 30, 2015 1:07 AM
"No, it's illegal to run treat customers differently because of your religious views."
Find in the Constitution where it says that. Go ahead, I'll wait. While you're at it, note the part of the First Amendment that specifically protects religious views. While you're at it, note the Tenth Amendment (yeah, I know, most people don't get that far) which states that the federal government has only the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and all others are reserved to state and local governments and/or the people.
Cousin Dave at December 30, 2015 6:44 AM
Again, that's not what's happening here. Essential services were not being denied. A baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, something that went against his religious beliefs. He didn't refuse to serve gay customers.
And gay weddings at that point had only recently been made legal by a Supreme Court decision, not an act of Congress. As a result of that circuitous route to legalization, there was bound to be some controversy over it.
The gay couple was posturing as much as the baker was. This was them pitching a "we're legal now and you can't do anything about it" tantrum.
If the baker had refused a starving gay man a bite of food (or even advocated that), that would be a different conversation. The baker refused to bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding and by doing so, hurt the gay couple's feelings.
And yes, I'm aware of the slippery slope argument. Today a refused wedding cake to a gay couple, tomorrow a refused glass of water to a dying gay man. But that's not the debate we're having. We're discussing whether someone should by law be forced to perform a non-vital service for something (not someone, but something) that is against their religious beliefs.
Conan the Grammarian at December 30, 2015 9:29 AM
And whether the state should be able to continue to punish them even after they've made the court-ordered restitution.
Conan the Grammarian at December 30, 2015 9:31 AM
factsarefacts, gofundme shut down the baker's crowdfunding before they barely made enough to pay the fine. Another one popped up on a Christian crowdfunding, but very few people knew about it.
August123 at December 30, 2015 9:31 AM
Btw, as someone else pointed out, these bakers did not discriminate against gay people. They served them all of the time. They just did not want to contract with and participate in, with their creative talents, an event that went against their religious beliefs.
Why would you want to force someone to work for what should be an event full of happy memories for you? This was purposeful targeting as Avakian made clear he was going to do. And all the lemmings line up and are happy to see the Constitution violated so long as the wrong-thinking people are put in their place.
August123 at December 30, 2015 9:36 AM
Factsarefacts,
On the EMTALA you are wrong. In accepting payment from medicare the government has attached strings. In effect they are acting as agents of the government providing medial services. An ER that does not accept medicare payments (government money) does not have a duty to care for anyone. That the ER provides other services as well doesn't matter.
On Kim Davis, care to show where I or Amy supported her actions? And since you made this political I assume you are aware Kim is a life long Democrat.
As for the rest stop in the middle of nowhere. If the government wishes services to be provided in that area it should provide them. Stealing from others is not a moral or acceptable solution.
On the forced advertising, I would oppose it. Simply because it is a cost the government is forcing on individuals without offering recompense. This is no different than the labeling requirements for fruit salad. And since accurate labeling is not possible for many grocery store made salads those will no longer be available for sale. I don't know Amy's views on this topic.
Ben at December 30, 2015 11:19 AM
Factsarefacts,
Another issue is clearly I was talking about how I think things should be. Our public universities are clearly part of the government and yet they engage in clear race based discrimination. I think this behavior is disgusting and unconstitutional. They insist it is a requirement of their function. UT is back in front of the supreme court over this. But either way it is clear our current government engages in and encourages racial, sexual, and other forms of discrimination.
Ben at December 30, 2015 11:59 AM
Hey Conan. Yes, you're right. I was presenting the slippery slope argument - but it was based off of Amy's creating a very "humane" exception for emergency room doctors that got me thinking about other exceptions (what are they?, who establishes the exception?, what are the criteria for creating an exception?). While I sympathize quite a bit with libertarian leanings, I can be quite cynical about the inevitability of the government getting involved in some way (from the creation of these exceptions to enacting disclosure laws). I was trying to think far beyond this solitary case.
It also got me thinking of a scenario (which could be quite funny). Say bakers are legally allowed to refuse to provide a wedding cake for a same sex marriage. A lesbian couple really wants a cake from Sweet Cakes by Melissa, but they know they won't provide cakes for such an event. So one of them goes to the baker and doesn't disclose it's for a same sex wedding (not all cakes have to have the name of the bride and groom) and essentially fools the baker. Would the baker have a cause of action against the lesbian couple - for non-disclosure and fraud and causing the baker to violate their religious beliefs? I know Ben disagrees with a disclosure law requiring the baker to post notices on its door about who it won't serve - so I guess there shouldn't be a law requiring the customers to disclose that it's really for a same-sex ceremony.
Anyway, I agree with you that a wedding cake is not an essential service -- and, I'd also add that, in this particular case, the lesbian couple did have other bakers to choose from in their area (so the free market was a bit more in play). But, I was thinking about other services that may become essential, depending on context -- like that rest stop, a tow truck service, the only pharmacy or pediatrician for miles around. OK - so Ben believes, as a solution, the government should open up these kinds of businesses that the government deems essential to circumvent other issues - so I just wanted to point out that this solution is governmental involvement (just a different kind).
A bit of irony about this particular case that I gleaned from reading the full ruling. (1) it could be argued that the lesbian couple ended up better off as they went to another baker who did their cake for $250, and the previous baker testified that they would've charged $600 for the same cake. (2) It could also be argued that this cake wasn't for a gay wedding at all - gay marriage wasn't legal in Oregon at the time of the incident (2012) - this couple actually got married in 2014 when it did become legal.
Ben, you wrote: "On Kim Davis, care to show where I or Amy supported her actions? And since you made this political I assume you are aware Kim is a life long Democrat." Sorry? All I wrote was: "I certainly like your premise that the government (or its agents) shouldn't discriminate. But a lot of people don't agree with you on that part - take a look at Kim Davis' backers (including several of the Republican presidential candidates)."
I don't see how I was implying that either you or Amy were supporting Kim Davis - all I pointed out was that a lot of people disagree with your position that the government shouldn't discriminate - and I gave an example of Kim Davis and several Republican presidential candidates (as they've made their positions quite clear during recent interviews and debates). Trust me, I would've added any of the Democratic presidential candidates if they also backed Kim Davis.
Hey August123, I've read a couple of articles re: the crowdfunding and the reports varied about how much the baker raised - ranging from $409,000 to half-a-million, which far exceeds the $136K fine that the baker has paid in full. And, yes, the remainder of their money could very well have just ended up in their lawyers' pockets.
This article did the math (as they raised funds from 2 campaigns, as the first from GoFundMe was stopped) and came up with $409K. http://wonkette.com/597414/oregon-bigot-bakers-cave-to-big-gay-probably-getting-eated-by-lions-right-now
I know wonkette is a tad bit on the liberal side. LOL But, this local Oregon report (dated back in July) was about how the baker was breaking records for crowdfunding) -- "Sweet Cakes by Melissa was kicked off GoFundMe earlier this year, but has since raised more than $350,000 on the crowdfunding site Continue to Give." See: http://legacy.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/04/24/judge-sweet-cakes-bakery-should-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple/26321227/
factsarefacts at December 30, 2015 1:59 PM
You don't have to be that subtle to show people disagree with me Factsarefacts. I can show you several hundred million people who think the government should be involved in killing all gays and Jews, a position I certainly don't support. And as I made clear the administration of the University of Texas and I don't see eye to eye.
On the government involvement question, I'm not an anarchist. I accept there is a point to government in society. I just don't support slavery, which is what forcing people to do work they don't want to do is. If the government wants something done they should fund it. Just like if you want something done you should be willing to pay for it. Stealing someone else's property or labor to accomplish your goals I don't view as moral.
Ben at December 30, 2015 2:42 PM
Again, your concern is the discrimination against the person by another person - the pediatrician, tow truck driver or pharmacist.
And that's not what this case is about.
This case is about two things. One, forcing someone to participate in an event which violates their beliefs. And two, does the government have the right to continue to punish the perpetrator even after he has fulfilled his court-ordered punishment?
The bakers were being asked to participate in a gay wedding and, by baking and decorating the cake to be used in it, they felt that would be a tacit endorsement by them of gay marriage. They balked at doing this and were fined by the court.
After they paid the fine, additional money was taken by the government - over and above the amount the court fined them. The government ruled (without a hearing) that they had violated a gag order barring them from posting in a public accommodation any indication that they would not serve people based on sexual orientation (which is not what they had said nor was it what the case was about). They had closed the public accommodation (their business) and the government's seizure of their assets was based on media appearances they, as private citizens, had made.
A better analogy than a tow truck driver or physician refusing life-saving services to a gay person would be a pediatrician morally opposed to circumcision refusing to supervise (as a medical professional) a circumcision, arguing that his overseeing such an event would imply his endorsement of it. The existence of other pediatricians (or other bakers in the original case) is irrelevant, nor is it a free market matter because another service provider is available. It's simply someone opting not to participate in something that they find offensive or morally wrong.
Getting a business license or opening a business doesn't mean you have to check your beliefs at the door. It does mean that you now operate a public accommodation and are not allowed to refuse generally-available services to members of the public who are, by law, legally entitled to them.
The question then is really how far that public entitlement goes - does it extend beyond the generally available-to-the-public work (i.e., generic cakes in the display case) all the way to custom creative work (e.g., wedding cakes)? To what extent is the government allowed to compel you to provide your labor to anyone who asks?
It's not a Jim Crow analogous situation. The bakers are not refusing to sell cakes to gay people, nor are they making gay people sit in the back. They're simply saying they don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding because gay marriage is against their religious beliefs and making such a cake might imply that they condone this (or any other) gay wedding.
The event, not the people, are at the heart of the matter. Although, I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet that there aren't many gay people at their church or in their social circle. And I don't get the idea they'll be watching the next pride parade with anything other than despair or contempt. However, free association and freedom of religion are among their rights, or at least they used to be.
I'm not opposed to gay weddings. I've never attended one - mostly because the only gay person I know who was getting married died shortly before the wedding. These bakers were opposed. They should have the right to refuse to participate in something they don't want to participate in even if their refusal hurts someone's feelings.
We have to stop letting someone's hurt feelings be the basis of lawsuits and invasive government regulations.
Conan the Grammarian at December 30, 2015 3:16 PM
I suppose that the baker could always have provided the cake and placed a sign by it saying "Cake provided by XYZ Bakery under threat of legal duress."
To prevent the sign being removed, they could have written the disclaimer in the frosting along the side of the cake or had the sign permanently affixed to the serving tray.
Conan the Grammarian at December 30, 2015 3:24 PM
Hey Conan,
Yeah, I get your point. I'll just focus on the "forced participation" in a gay marriage part.
I would be curious if the bakery would, say, have been willing to provide a cake for a lesbian couple who are celebrating their one-year dating anniversary (i.e., not a marriage)? I'd also be curious if their religious beliefs include other marital prohibitions (like no divorced people being allowed to marry again) and if they grill all prospective wedding cake customers to make sure that they wouldn't be providing a cake for a marriage ceremony which violates their religious beliefs (I highly doubt it - but I could be wrong). I know this case involved a combination of product and service - but I'd be curious if the bakery would have be willing to sell a pre-made standard cake in the display cabinet to a lesbian couple who announce that they're buying that cake for their wedding (no special service required) -- especially since they publicly stated that they didn't discriminate against gay people coming into the store and buying their pre-made products? What I'm trying to get at - it's a murky area whether this bakery is against same sex marriage or homosexuals - without having more information.
As I stated previously, it could be argued, in this particular case, that it wasn't even a gay marriage - because that wasn't yet legal.
I don't know where you stand on Hobby Lobby, and I don't know the corporate structure of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. That being said, many have the opinion that unless it's an individual, it's an entity and entities do not have religious rights. "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" doesn't sound like an individual to me - it's an entity and therefor cannot have religious beliefs.
So, taking the premise that providing a product/service at a gay wedding is considered "participating" and an approval of same sex marriage (and a violation of one's religious beliefs) - does that mean an employee of the caterer can, upon arriving at the venue and learning that it's a gay wedding, refuse to perform his job without any consequences? Like, let's say the caterer fires this employee for this action - does the employee have a legal case against his employer (say, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) for punishing him because he refused to perform his job.
Since, I think the terms and concepts "participation" and "(implicit) approval of same sex marriage" might vary among different individuals based on their own beliefs (including religious beliefs) - like, I've actually spoken with a caterer at a SSM ceremony who explained that his church didn't approve of same sex marriage, but had no problem doing the job (he explained that, according to him, it was just providing food and beverage - not approval of any kind, plus it was a high-paying gig with low-maintenance customers. LOL) -- the only solution is to rely on an individual's own interpretation of what constitutes "participation". So, let's take that isolated rest stop, or a tow truck - can they refuse service to a lesbian couple who explicitly state that they're driving to their wedding ceremony - because the service provider believes it would constitute "participation" in the wedding? Could they also refuse service if the lesbian couple states that they're married - because, according to their religious beliefs, doing so would constitute some kind of approval (not of homosexuality) of same sex marriage? Hey, why can't they discriminate against all homosexuals because it's their religious belief that a homosexual is (i) either in a gay marriage or (ii) likely to engage in a gay marriage -- and, it's not homosexuals they're opposed to, just to participating in any shape or form in same sex marriage?
Based on my previous paragraph, I do think, because of this "murkiness", that some business and individuals will simply say that they're discriminating based on "same sex marriage" (not homosexuality), when, in reality, they just don't approve of homosexuals and want to discriminate against them.
I'll admit that I have mixed feelings about this case. I personally wouldn't filed a complaint against this bakery - for multiple reasons - including not wanting them to use it as an opportunity to make a ton of money from the whole thing - like that Indiana pizzeria. I also wouldn't want to force them to do it - because, among other things, I would be worried that they wouldn't do a good job. On the other hand, these cases do act as precedent for cases that do go far beyond providing a cake for a same sex wedding.
factsarefacts at December 30, 2015 7:04 PM
I don't know. I wonder too, if only gay weddings were proscribed services by this bakery. If so, then their whole "against my religious beliefs" defense kinda falls apart.
As for divorce, not many religions are left that proscribe divorce and remarriage. Interfaith and interracial marriages are generally accepted by most mainstream religions these days as well.
And, as I posited earlier, even though the bakers have said that they're not against gay people, I'm willing to bet there aren't a lot of gay people in their church or in their social circle. Whether that is proof that they're anti-homosexual or anti-gay-marriage is unclear. The supposed lack of gays in their social circle is not proof of anything. We can only accept their word and the fact that openly gay people have been served in their establishment before as evidence that they're not anti-homosexual, scant proof though it may be.
Like the civil rights movement, it was when people were introduced to and got to know the "others" as people that the segregation movement lost much of its support. Having people like Bill Cosby on I Spy, Nichelle Nichols on Star Trek, and others made white people see black people as people instead of "others." As long as you don't know any gay people and don't think of them as people, it's easy to be against gay marriage and convince yourself that it's gay marriage you oppose instead of gay people. When you have to start thinking of them as your friend, Kelly, or your neighbor, Leslie, the exercise becomes a little less academic.
Of course, religious proscriptions must be respected by the government. We've built a successful legal and political system in which we don't have the government telling us how we can worship. And it's been successful mostly because the government cannot interfere in our inner lives.
So, how do we build an inclusive society that allows exclusions? That's something we are working on and we must work on it while respecting various beliefs and traditions - even the ones with which we disagree.
For legal purposes, we define a corporation (or a union, a university, a church, etc.) as a legal individual and ascribe them the same rights we ascribe to individuals with regard to freedom of speech and association (with some restrictions for hiring and membership standards). Where we stand on corporate religious freedom is still being debated. If the Church can run a university or a charity according to religious dogma, can a devout board of directors found and run a company according to religious dogma?
Remember these organizations are collections of people, people with beliefs. People join and stay with these organizations (or leave them) based on compatibility of beliefs.
And even if the cake baking corporation is forced to participate in the wedding, would the artisan, as an individual, be bound by the same rules? Could the artisan refuse to decorate the cake?
Again, we're still working some of this out. It's a good question, though. The employer would be wise to alert the employees of the details to prevent being shorthanded if that's the case.
In short, I think we enter dangerous territory when we allow the government to circumvent religious beliefs even in the name of equality or "fairness." History has shown us that when government becomes religion (by endorsing one religion or eliminating all of them), tyranny ensues. Politics and religion don't mix - and not just at cocktail parties.
The problem is that too many people casually dismiss religious beliefs because they conflict with their own beliefs. They claim authority for the government to over-ride stated religious beliefs of individuals. We enter dangerous territory when we allow a government official to dismiss or over-ride the closely-held beliefs of people just because they're not like us or don't believe the same way we do.
Conan the Grammarian at December 30, 2015 8:31 PM
"it's a murky area whether this bakery is against same sex marriage or homosexuals"
Not really. The lesbian couple who sued them used to be their friends. This has been highly reported. That is why their feelings got hurt so badly. They felt betrayed by these bakers. They had purchased products from them in the past. But when they asked for a wedding cake they would not provide it.
Ben at December 31, 2015 7:09 AM
So, they're upset that they didn't know their baker friends well enough to know they were devoutly religious and then asked those friends to violate their religious strictures for them, which those friends refused to do?
Because it's all about you and your newly-legal wedding. So, pitch a temper tantrum when friends refuse to violate their deeply-held religious values for you and sue them into bankruptcy. What good friends these bakers had.
Conan the Grammarian at December 31, 2015 2:51 PM
Yep Conan. This is all about their hurt feelings that they didn't notice their friends didn't approve of gay marriage even though they have no issue with gay people.
Classic temper tantrum behavior.
Ben at December 31, 2015 7:36 PM
Ben, you can provide a link to an article that shows that they were friends. I freakishly read the ruling that Amy kindly attached in her original story, from which I gleaned the following, from the "findings of fact":
(i) Par. 6 and 7: One of the lesbians and her mother met the bakers at a bridal expo in Portland in late 2012 or early 2013. It was revealed that the bakery had made a cake (which was well-received) for the mother 2 years previously. It was at this meeting that the lesbian asked the bakery to make the cake and they later arranged via email to have a cake tasting at the bakery's premises.
(ii) Par. 8 and 9: It was at the tasting (on January 17, 2013), attended by this lesbian and her mother, that one of the bakers asked for the name of the groom - and that's when he learned that she was a lesbian and refused to the make the cake.
[Sorry, I'm unable to cut and past from the ruling.]
I'll buy that they maybe knew each other - but FRIENDS? THE BAKER DIDN'T EVEN KNOW SHE WAS A LESBIAN (until the cake tasting), who had been with her partner for 11 YEARS (par. 1), or that the lesbian couple had been raising 2 special needs foster children (whom they took in because they were the godparents and the children's mother passed away) for the past couple of years and were in the process of trying adopt them (par 4). One of the reasons why the couple were finally getting "married" (even though it wasn't yet legal) was because they thought it would help with the adoption process -- and one of the reasons why they suffered anxiety from the whole ordeal was because they became "public figures" by filing the discrimination complaint - and they thought the whole situation would cause them to be discriminated against in the adoption process.
factsarefacts at December 31, 2015 8:06 PM
Whattaya mean "I find their refusals disgusting, hurtful, and backward"? People should have the right to choose to do business or refuse to do business with anyone, even More-Sacred-Than-Mohammed negroes.
And they don't need any reason for their choice.
Alan at January 1, 2016 6:01 PM
So, the bakers are being punished to the tune of $135,000 plus whatever else the government can steal from them for refusing to bake and decorate a cake for a purely ceremonial function.
Does that mean my refusal to attend a renewal of vows ceremony or a lodge pinning ceremony is also punishable by law?
And why would the lesbians think that a ceremony not recognized as legal or in any way binding would have any effect on their adoption application?
In other words, the entire discrimination case is built on hurt feelings and pie-in-the-sky fantasies.
Conan the Grammarian at January 2, 2016 9:37 AM
Conan, I just ask that you read the ruling, or at least this article:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-didnt-just-deny-a-lesbian-couple-service-they-also-doxxed-them-and-their-kids.html
We all base our opinions on the information that we've received - which omit, embellish, etc. For example, you made a post based on the information provided by Ben, who stated that the bakers and the lesbians were friends. It's clear from the ruling (which contains a "findings of fact" by an administrative judge who actually investigated the case) that they weren't friends. The lesbians weren't aware of the bakers' religious beliefs; and bakers' weren't aware it was a lesbian "wedding" until the cake tasting.
While I can't state with definiteness as to the reasons why the lesbians filed the complaint initially, I certainly can hypothesize. Perhaps, they felt they had a duty to report a business that was violating Oregon laws against discrimination against gay people - perhaps, all they expected was that the bakery would get a warning not to do so in the future. I don't really know.
[For illustrative purposes only, I'm just throwing this in. I filed a complaint with my city's Dept. of Building's this morning over the phone - against my landlord for doing (extremely noisy) renovations on the vacant apartment above me on a Saturday, which is against state law. I've done so previously as the landlord keeps repeating the same behavior. My motivation isn't money (as I have never received a dime, nor will I), publicity, to be a pain in the butt (which is what my landlord has called me). My motivation is that I want my neighbors and me to enjoy the peace and quiet that we pay for under our leases, which explicitly incorporate state law. I initially hoped that a simple warning would suffice - but it hasn't over the years - so, at this point, I hope the city does fine them if that's what it takes to get them to cut it out.]
Now, some additional factual nuggets from this case - AGAIN, GLEANED FROM THE RULING, which contains a "finding of fact" by an administrative judge who investigated this story more fully than anyone.
(i) The bakers did have animus against gay people (i.e., they weren't just opposed to SSM). The baker told the mother of the lesbian (who went back to the bakery after the cake tasting to talk, during which she revealed that she used to think like the baker and that she also had another gay child) that her children were "abominations". [And, I'll add, it certainly is the bakers' right to have the religious beliefs that state that homosexuals are an abomination.]
(ii) The lesbians did suffer a great deal of anxiety and stress from the whole ordeal. This case (including their names and addresses) exploded greatly in the public eye - far more than they had perhaps anticipated. This happened, in part, due to things such as (i) the baker posting a copy of the complaint, containing the lesbians' personal information on his facebook page, (ii) the baker giving numerous interviews, and (iii) the lesbians receiving death threats and other threats, which greatly jeopardized the adoption process for their 2 foster children because (per the article I attached) "State officials told the [lesbians] that if they couldn’t protect the foster children in their home from the harassment that resulted from the [bakers'] public posting of their home address, etc., they would lose the children." [NOTE: I do not fault the baker in any way for making public the facts of the case, doing interviews, etc., that is his right. I was just pointing out that, in this particularly freaky case, that I can certainly understand how stressed the lesbians became about the whole thing because of ensuing threats against themselves and their children. The ruling stated that the price tag of $136K was to compensate them for this stress.]
You stated: "And why would the lesbians think that a ceremony not recognized as legal or in any way binding would have any effect on their adoption application?" My apologies, I based that statement on the ruling; upon further investigation, at least according to Wikipedia, "domestic partnerships" in Oregon were recognized as valid in 2008 - but not same sex marriage; and, I'll assume, given the bakers' religious belief that homosexuals are abominations, that they would have been unwilling to provide a cake for a "domestic partnership" ceremony as well. My guess is that they were entering into a "domestic partnership", perhaps on the advice of counsel, as it would demonstrate to the agency (which take into account a myriad of factors, legal and non-legal, in deciding whether to grant the adoption) - as it would demonstrate a commitment to remain together for the benefit of the children. [This would be my educated guess - as I've known a couple of gay couples who've been down this road before. :)]
You wrote: "The problem is that too many people casually dismiss religious beliefs because they conflict with their own beliefs. They claim authority for the government to over-ride stated religious beliefs of individuals. We enter dangerous territory when we allow a government official to dismiss or over-ride the closely-held beliefs of people just because they're not like us or don't believe the same way we do."
Yes, I agree with you to a certain extent. However, I think it's rather inevitable that there will be this constant battle between the government of the USA (which is supposed to have a separation of church and state) and the religious beliefs of its citizens. For example, religious beliefs (historically and currently in certain parts of the world) have provided for human sacrifice, slavery, caste systems, segregation, polygamy, stoning, caning, etc. -- all of which the US government has, currently, made illegal - to the dismay of certain religious sects. And, on the flip side, we see religious groups trying to utilize the government to impose their religious beliefs upon other citizens on a variety of issues (like abortion, birth control, civil same sex marriage, prayer in school and at town council meetings). It is a slippery slope.
factsarefacts at January 2, 2016 12:39 PM
Conan, I just ask that you read the ruling, or at least this article:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-didnt-just-deny-a-lesbian-couple-service-they-also-doxxed-them-and-their-kids.html
We all base our opinions on the information that we've received - which omit, embellish, etc. For example, you made a post based on the information provided by Ben, who stated that the bakers and the lesbians were friends. It's clear from the ruling (which contains a "findings of fact" by an administrative judge who actually investigated the case) that they weren't friends. The lesbians weren't aware of the bakers' religious beliefs; and bakers' weren't aware it was a lesbian "wedding" until the cake tasting.
While I can't state with definiteness as to the reasons why the lesbians filed the complaint initially, I certainly can hypothesize. Perhaps, they felt they had a duty to report a business that was violating Oregon laws against discrimination against gay people - perhaps, all they expected was that the bakery would get a warning not to do so in the future. I don't really know.
[For illustrative purposes only, I'm just throwing this in. I filed a complaint with my city's Dept. of Building's this morning over the phone - against my landlord for doing (extremely noisy) renovations on the vacant apartment above me on a Saturday, which is against state law. I've done so previously as the landlord keeps repeating the same behavior. My motivation isn't money (as I have never received a dime, nor will I), publicity, to be a pain in the butt (which is what my landlord has called me). My motivation is that I want my neighbors and me to enjoy the peace and quiet that we pay for under our leases, which explicitly incorporate state law. I initially hoped that a simple warning would suffice - but it hasn't over the years - so, at this point, I hope the city does fine them if that's what it takes to get them to cut it out.]
Now, some additional factual nuggets from this case - AGAIN, GLEANED FROM THE RULING, which contains a "finding of fact" by an administrative judge who investigated this story more fully than anyone.
(i) The bakers did have animus against gay people (i.e., they weren't just opposed to SSM). The baker told the mother of the lesbian (who went back to the bakery after the cake tasting to talk, during which she revealed that she used to think like the baker and that she also had another gay child) that her children were "abominations". [And, I'll add, it certainly is the bakers' right to have the religious beliefs that state that homosexuals are an abomination.]
(ii) The lesbians did suffer a great deal of anxiety and stress from the whole ordeal. This case (including their names and addresses) exploded greatly in the public eye - far more than they had perhaps anticipated. This happened, in part, due to things such as (i) the baker posting a copy of the complaint, containing the lesbians' personal information on his facebook page, (ii) the baker giving numerous interviews, and (iii) the lesbians receiving death threats and other threats, which greatly jeopardized the adoption process for their 2 foster children because (per the article I attached) "State officials told the [lesbians] that if they couldn’t protect the foster children in their home from the harassment that resulted from the [bakers'] public posting of their home address, etc., they would lose the children." [NOTE: I do not fault the baker in any way for making public the facts of the case, doing interviews, etc., that is his right. I was just pointing out that, in this particularly freaky case, that I can certainly understand how stressed the lesbians became about the whole thing because of ensuing threats against themselves and their children. The ruling stated that the price tag of $136K was to compensate them for this stress.]
You stated: "And why would the lesbians think that a ceremony not recognized as legal or in any way binding would have any effect on their adoption application?" My apologies, I based that statement on the ruling; upon further investigation, at least according to Wikipedia, "domestic partnerships" in Oregon were recognized as valid in 2008 - but not same sex marriage; and, I'll assume, given the bakers' religious belief that homosexuals are abominations, that they would have been unwilling to provide a cake for a "domestic partnership" ceremony as well. My guess is that they were entering into a "domestic partnership", perhaps on the advice of counsel, as it would demonstrate to the agency (which take into account a myriad of factors, legal and non-legal, in deciding whether to grant the adoption) - as it would demonstrate a commitment to remain together for the benefit of the children. [This would be my educated guess - as I've known a couple of gay couples who've been down this road before. :)]
You wrote: "The problem is that too many people casually dismiss religious beliefs because they conflict with their own beliefs. They claim authority for the government to over-ride stated religious beliefs of individuals. We enter dangerous territory when we allow a government official to dismiss or over-ride the closely-held beliefs of people just because they're not like us or don't believe the same way we do."
Yes, I agree with you to a certain extent. However, I think it's rather inevitable that there will be this constant battle between the government of the USA (which is supposed to have a separation of church and state) and the religious beliefs of its citizens. For example, religious beliefs (historically and currently in certain parts of the world) have provided for human sacrifice, slavery, caste systems, segregation, polygamy, stoning, caning, etc. -- all of which the US government has, currently, made illegal - to the dismay of certain religious sects. And, on the flip side, we see religious groups trying to utilize the government to impose their religious beliefs upon other citizens on a variety of issues (like abortion, birth control, civil same sex marriage, prayer in school and at town council meetings). It is a slippery slope.
factsarefacts at January 2, 2016 12:39 PM
It seems very important to you that all here agree the lesbians were ill-treated and the bakers were jerks.
I don't agree with the bakers, but I do think their freedom to practice their religion in this country as citizens within some legal boundaries (i.e., no human sacrifice, no loud services at 3am, no public nudity, no child abuse) needs to be honored by the government and by the public at large - even is said religion is abhorent to us.
It's sad that one of the lesbians had a near-breakdown and the other had to shoulder the burden of taking care of her partner and their children. That's life. You deal with setbacks and issues, even ones unfairly thrust upon you.
And, no, the bakers should not have doxxed them, but the lesbians were warned that their deets would be sent to the defendant - or they would have been if they'd used something other than a smart phone to file a legal document and the state had hired a more competent mobile content developer. A competent lawyer could have helped them navigate the pitfalls of filing a complaint and would probably have taken the case pro bono.
The doxxing, to me, is the actionable behavior in this case. Sue the bakers for that and I'm on their side. However, freedom of information laws would probably have made that information available to the public anyway.
I have an issue with an agency of the state of Oregon holding that refusing to participate in a non-binding ceremony, what is essentially a party or social affair, is actionable discrimination. Must all businesses and/or professionals take part in social events with overtones that they oppose for fear of being fined?
As well, I have an issue with the state of Oregon continuing to punish the bakers after they've paid their fine and closed their business.
Not to mention the issues with a government agency levying fines for non-compliance with non-legislated guidelines. At least in a court of law, the defendant is allowed to defend themselves or question the constitutionality of the guidelines. In legislative guidelines, one can contact one's representative to express one's views or organize others who agree with one to oppose proposed guidelines or to urge changes.
Quoting Leviticus in declining to participate in their ceremony to someone is obnoxious. Especially if the ceremony has no legally binding ramifications and very few social ones. And telling a mother her children are abominations is just rude - especially to a long-time customer. Bad business that.
Yes, Ben made an assertion that they were friends and I commented that if they were friends, apparently they didn't know each other well at all and the couple was perhaps insulted when their friends rejected their request, not knowing their friends were religious.
Speaking of embellishing information. You cannot speak definitively as to why they filed a complaint, but you, in hypothesizing, embellished the information you had and ascribed to the lesbian couple the most noble and innocent of motives.
I too can hypothesize. Perhaps the lesbian couple felt insulted when the bakers loudly and obnoxiously rejected them and their lifestyle - which has generally been accepted by society at large and a defense of which is written into Oregon law. They were faced, perhaps for the first time, with someone who didn't consider their sexual orientation wonderful and exotic; someone who, to top it off, was rude in rejecting them, someone who stood as a reminder that not everyone accepts homosexuality as natural. No one wants to be told they're an abomination or un-natural.
Conan the Grammarian at January 2, 2016 7:36 PM
Conan, you wrote: "It seems very important to you that all here agree the lesbians were ill-treated and the bakers were jerks."
Not at all. TBH, at this point, I'm guessing all of the other posters have bowed out of this discussion and have moved on - judging by the recent lack of such posts. I know I haven't posted on this site in a while, but I still read it sometimes. I initially posted, not with the purpose of even discussing this particular case, but to illustrate what I thought were the real-life complexities of the libertarian positions (that private businesses should be able to discriminate against whomever they want for any reason) being espoused.
You informed me that you didn't think that's what this case was about - that it was about a non-essential service and that the government was forcing the bakers to participate in an activity that violated their religious beliefs.
Fair enough. I had read a little about this case and had made a few initial assumptions and opinions without knowing all the facts (PS: I still don't know all of the facts). Some of my initial thoughts (that I did not fully share with the board) were: (i) it's just a non-essential wedding cake and I'm sure that, in Portland, Oregon, there would be plenty of other bakers who would be happy to do the job; (ii) the $136K was a very hefty fine for the bakers to pay for only one instance of discrimination; (iii) the bakers were being represented pro bono by a "Liberty Counsel" type law firm; and (iv) that the state had forcibly shut down the bakery because of this once incident (which seemed very harsh). Some of my factual assumptions turned out to be incorrect.
But, as my moniker indicates, I place a great deal of importance on facts -- so I took it upon myself to educate myself on the facts of this case. I personally think it's best to actually read the court's ruling (as opposed to relying on articles or even others' posts, because authors very often are pursuing their own agendas). I also did some original research. For example, (i) I googled the names of the bakers' attorneys that were listed in the ruling - to discover that they were local lawyers - so my initial thought that the bakers' were really cleaning up from the crowdfunding was probably wrong, as some of that money was going to go towards their legal bills; and (ii) I learned that the $136K awarded was not a fine - but to compensate the lesbians for "pain and suffering" for their ordeal, which was having an effect on their attempts to adopt their 2 foster children (factual information from the ruling which I was simply trying to share with the board).
It was because of this research that I felt the need to correct factual mistakes made by some of the posters (NOTE: I'm including my own inaccurate posts) that I felt others were relying on them to shape their opinions of the case and the discussion.
Some of these factual misstatements include:
(i) You wrote: "But that's not what is happening here. The baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. He didn't refuse to serve gay people. He didn't say gay people were against his religion, just gay marriage, an act that had itself only recently been recognized as legal." And, I believe, that August123 may have been relying on your statement when he posted: "Btw, as someone else pointed out, these bakers did not discriminate against gay people."
I disagree with your statement that "he didn't say gay people were against his religion" based on the facts of this case. As I pointed out, the baker told the mother that her gay children were abominations after quoting the Bible.
(ii) Based on Ben's post that the lesbians and bakers were friends, you wrote: "So, they're upset that they didn't know their baker friends well enough to know they were devoutly religious and then asked those friends to violate their religious strictures for them, which those friends refused to do?
Because it's all about you and your newly-legal wedding. So, pitch a temper tantrum when friends refuse to violate their deeply-held religious values for you and sue them into bankruptcy. What good friends these bakers had."
There are several factual errors here that I was trying to correct (again, SO THAT ANY POSTERS, INCLUDING YOU, CAN USE THE FACTS TO FORM YOUR OPINIONS), including: (a) the parties weren't friends at all; (b) this case wasn't about the lesbians' "newly-legal wedding" (as I pointed out, at the time of the case, gay marriage wasn't even legal in Oregon - at most, it was a "domestic partnership" (which begs the question, since it wasn't a "legal" wedding, perhaps it could be interpreted that they were discriminating against gay people as opposed to being against gay marriage); and (c) the bakers weren't sued into bankruptcy (I pointed out the fact that, at a minimum, they raised $409K, via crowdfunding -- which amount far exceeded the $136K judgment and that they had paid that amount in full) AND they are still operating their business -- just out of their home.
This case is not the end of the road, by any means, on the issue of whether it is legal or moral to require wedding businesses to provide products and services for same sex weddings. I read that several legislatures will be proposing laws in this new year that will let these businesses refuse to do so if it violates their "deeply held" religious beliefs. In addition, because discrimination against gays and lesbians by private businesses is still legal in a majority of states, I think we'll be seeing more cases arise as gay couples in those states will find themselves being discriminated against when they exercise their new legal right to get married. So, because legal cases act as precedent, they can be very important (including one over something that seems as trivial as a wedding cake). This case and the ones that will be forthcoming are extraordinarily complex, and, because of this, I was trying to generate further discussion over issues that are going to arise that most of us (including me) haven't yet anticipated. I'm going to finish by listing some of them:
(1) How do you determine if someone actually has a deeply held religious belief? (Some people worship at home; some people have these beliefs but don't go around espousing them to leave a factual history). How do you determine if someone is using the "religious belief" excuse to discriminate against gays (which will protect them from liability) when they really just think that homosexuality is (I'll use your term, Conan) "un-natural?"
(2) If another state determines that a baker can refuse to make a wedding cake because it is forced "participation" in same sex marriage, can that be used as precedent for other private businesses to do the same. I'm talking about the slippery slope argument - from "non-essential" to "essential." How about the only supermarket in a rural area (they don't want the lesbian couple using their food for their wedding, or any anniversary for that matter) - so, on those grounds alone, can the supermarket just refuse to let the lesbian couple into their store - ever? See my previous rest stop example as well. Can a business just flat out discriminate against gays period because, according to their beliefs, gays will either be in a SSM or will likely be in a SSM? If "essential-ness" becomes a deciding factor, what will the roles be of the legislatures and courts in determining what products and services are "essential" (because, as I pointed out in my previous posts, what is "essential" depends enormously on context) and how many tax dollars are we willing to spend in this process?
(3) Is there a difference between discriminating against gays because of their sexual orientation vs. discriminating against them solely because of SSM? Like, will a lesbian couple who want a cake to celebrate their one-year dating anniversary have a cause of action against the baker - but a lesbian couple who are marrying will not?
(4) The government (via the legislature and the courts) do make certain actions illegal, even if done in the name of religious beliefs. Conan, you mentioned playing loud music at 3AM as an example of something that should be prohibited. Others may disagree with you and feel that it's de minimis (particularly if it's something that occurs, say, once a year or if their house of worship is in a non-residential neighborhood) or take an even harder position as to how dare the government violate their religious beliefs and practices regardless of who else it might effect -- i.e., should there be a hard-line prohibition approach vs. a fact-specific cases to be decided by the courts with respect to same sex weddings? How closely should the deciding bodies delve into these cases? How far should these deciding bodies use precedents in deciding these matters (for example, it wasn't so long ago that a large number of Americans thought inter-racial marriage was a violation of their religious beliefs)?
(5) How much of a distinction between "product" vs. "service" should be made in deciding these cases? Like, a special made-to-order cake vs. a ready-made one in the display case? Say a legislature makes this distinction - could or should a court interpret "putting the cake in a box with the bakery's name on it" as "forced participation"? What about just ringing up the purchase, is that enough service? How about wedding gowns (is helping the lesbian try on several gowns enough of a "service" - what about alterations)?
(6) If private businesses can discriminate against same sex weddings, should there be disclosure laws - you know, so customers won't waste their time or end up crying in their car like the lesbian did in this case. Can the government force customers to disclose to bakers that they want the cake for their gay wedding - so that that the baker won't be "tricked" into violating their religious beliefs? Would there even be a cause of action for such a thing? Can bridal expos (like the one in Portland), bridal magazines, etc. force bakers to make such disclosures in order to participate or advertise? [Or, can they even ban such bakers completely because discrimination in violation of the law is against their religious beliefs - you know, "render unto Caesar,..."]
factsarefacts at January 3, 2016 9:58 AM
Well, I'm like a dog with a bone (or I have too much time on my hands), that I felt I should add a little bit more information about this situation in case anyone else will ever read this:
I did further investigation as to the amount of crowdfunding.
According to the Wonkette article I read (and linked to - see above), the bakers raised $109,000 on Go Fund Me before it was shut down. I checked out the "Continue to Give" crowdfunding site and learned that the bakers' goal was to raise $150,000. So, the bakers were seeking a total of $259,000. So, based on these figures (and the the judgment was for $136,000), the bakers' legal bills totaled approximately $123,000 (259,000 - 136,000). This seems like a more than reasonable figure to me - since their lawyers were, upon my investigation, a local solo practitioner and a 3-person law firm (one partner, 2 associates) - you know, as opposed to Oregon's priciest law firms - and this case was tried by an administrative judge (as opposed to a civil court, in front of jury, with far stricter civil procedures -- i.e., they're most costly).
See https://www.continuetogive.com/4811392
Now, according to the "Continue to Give Site", the bakers reached 278% of their stated goal of $150,000 (i.e., they raised $417,000 from that crowdfunding site) - so, combined with the $109,000 previously raised, the bakers earned a WHOPPING TOTAL OF $526,000 through crowdfunding.
So, assuming that the $259,000 figure I came up with above covers the judgment and legal bills, THE BAKERS WERE ABLE TO POCKET $267,000 - MEANING THAT THE BAKERS WERE ABLE TO MAKE ALMOST DOUBLE OF WHAT THE LESBIANS ACTUALLY RECEIVED.
Now, this case has been completely adjudicated. The bakers have paid the full amount - thereby signifying that they will not appeal the ruling to any higher court - especially considering that they had initially refused to pay the initial judgment at all (which is why the court garnished the $7,000 from their bank account in the first place). THE CONTINUE TO GIVE SITE IS STILL ACTIVE (i.e., people can still contribute) - but there is no indication on the site (as of today) telling potential contributors that the legal case is completely over or what exactly the bakers are going to do with the excess funds (since all the judgment and legal bills have been paid) ("Failure to Disclose").
Now, because the baker quoted Leviticus when he told the lesbian's mother that her gay children were abominations, I think it's safe to assume the bakers were of the Judeo-Christian persuasion ("Deeply Held Religious Beliefs"). Out of curiosity, I wonder if, by engaging in the Failure to Disclose, the bakers are engaging in "theft" as prohibited by the Ten Commandments that is included in their Deeply Held Religious Beliefs? I think so!
In addition, the bakers are now operating their business from their home - they take online orders. I checked out their website -- http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/.
Now, just because they aren't operating their bakery out of a store, does not mean that they are still not subject to Oregon law (as their home is in Oregon), so they are still subject to Oregon's anti-discrimination laws. So, especially as illustrated by the ruling, the bakers would not be able to ask online shoppers if the cake is for a gay wedding and then refuse to fill the order. And, a perusal of their website confirms that there is no section asking customers what they intend to do with the bakers' products.
Now, because the bakers have elected to continue to operate a baking business in Oregon and because they can't discriminate against gay weddings, I think it's safe to assume that, at least according to the bakers, IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF BAKERS' DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TO MAKE CAKES FOR GAY WEDDINGS AFTER ALL - WELL, AS LONG THE BAKERS DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CAKES ARE BEING USED FOR. I mean, if it providing cakes for gay weddings did violate their Deeply Held Religious Beliefs, they would simply have to get out of the bakery business entirely. Am I right?
Now, it really wasn't my initial intention to delve so deeply into this case, to pass judgment on the lesbians or the bakers, etc. But after doing so, I'll just offer my opinion on these bakers. YES, THEY ARE JERKS (I'M USING YOUR WORD, CONAN). THEY ARE THIEVES FOR NOT SHUTTING DOWN THE CROWDFUNDING SITE WHEN THEY RAISED ENOUGH MONEY AND FOR THEIR SUBSEQUENT FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AND FOR CONTINUING TO ACCEPT DONATIONS WHEN THE WHOLE AFFAIR IS OVER. THEY ARE HYPOCRITES WHO VIOLATE THEIR OWN SO-CALLED DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BY (1) ENGAGING IN THEFT AND (2) CONTINUING TO OPERATE A BAKERY BUSINESS GIVEN THAT THEIR CAKES CAN BE USED FOR GAY WEDDINGS AFTER ALL.
Just my final 2 cents on this matter. :)
factsarefacts at January 4, 2016 12:18 PM
factsarefacts, since that was not your "final 2 cents" on the matter and you hijacked another thread to continue your rant, I'm taking this out of that thread and putting it back here.
That, factsarefacts, is, in my opinion, an actionable case, but not one of discrimination against lesbians. And, if you'd bothered to read my posts on this thread instead of hijacking another one, I posted that they should have sued the bakers for that and I'd have sided with them on that. Although, to be fair, the baker claimed that when he published the complaint on Facebook, the did not realize her address was on it, despite it being at the top of the complaint.
The case, as presented, was about bakers being fined for discrimination for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian commitment ceremony. The Oregon government agency (BOLI) that fined the bakers did not fine them for publishing the lesbians' contact information, but for discrimination, finding that Oregon law allows for no difference between refusing to serve a lesbian ceremony and refusing to serve a lesbian.
The lesbians in their complaint asked for $150,000 which included punitive damages, so $135,000 "award" was not "so high."
And, in reading the complaint, RBC did indeed shatter like an "eggshell" at the first sign of difficulty, definitely not someone you want in the trenches with you. Much of that was probably overblown in an effort to increase the damages award, but she still comes across as a fragile "eggshell lesbian."
Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2016 10:05 AM
Not in any way.
Seriously, seek help. You have issues.
Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2016 10:08 AM
Leave a comment