Hypocrite Liberals imposing their beliefs

[SteelCurtain]

There would have been no reparations due if the Kleins (owners of the bakery) hadn't posted the complaint that the lesbian couple sent to the Oregon Department of Justice on Facebook, plastered it all over the right wing media, and made themselves out to be victims.

They in turn victimized the women who only filed a complaint to the Oregon DOJ. They did nothing else. The Bureau of Labor and Industry of the State of Oregon came up with the judgement:

This isn't about cake. It is about a business' refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.

The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.

The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.

The Agency's theory of liability is that since Respondents brought the case to the media's attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding Complainants, it was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact Complainants, making Respondents liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by Complainants. The Agency also argues that Respondents are liable for negative third party social media directed at Complainants because it was a foreseeable consequence of media attention."

The Commissioner concludes that complainants’ emotional harm related to the denial of service continued throughout the period of media attention and that the facts related solely to emotional harm resulting from media attention do not adequately support an award of damages. No further analysis regarding the media attention as a causative factor is, therefore, necessary.

Bottom line: they broke the law in that state. They were liable for the emotional harm they caused by attracting national media attention, death threats, and hate to a couple that merely filed a complaint because a public business broke the law.