RE: Hypocrite Liberals imposing their beliefs
July 23, 2015 at 12:48 am
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2015 at 1:00 am by omnomnom.)
(July 22, 2015 at 6:03 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:George Washington was a Freemason and thus probably a homophobe. I've met several of those. I'm not even a homophobe. I don't care about this whole gay war. I just don't want lawsuits thrown at me for refusing to bake a wedding cake which my conscience will kill me and sexual karma will fck me for. Understand?Quote:Buy don't infringe MY RIGHTS and force me to accomadate your beliefs. That is pure assholism. Do you get me?
It's you who don't seem to get it. Try to grasp this: living in a democratic society is all ABOUT accommodation. No one's asking you to be gay, or to officiate at a same-sex wedding or anything of the sort. But what you cannot do is to refuse to trade with people whom - for whatever reason - you happen to dislike. It doesn't matter what you don't like about them; their politics or their sexual orientation or their skin tone or their favourite football club.
Your rights are in no wise being infringed by law requiring you to treat with same sex couples on an equal footing. In fact, laws exist to prevent you from refusing to treat with those with whom you disagree. As far as religion goes, you are free to believe whatever you like - your own loony notions are your business and nobody else's. What you cannot do is to manifest these beliefs in a way that makes second-class citizens out of people who behave in a way contrary to the customs of your particular tribe. If you sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, you are NOT supporting or endorsing same-sex marriage. If you sell a car to a gay couple, you are not endorsing same-sex marriage. If you send your child to a school where her teacher is in a same sex marriage, you are not endorsing gay marriage.
In all those cases, what you are doing is affirming the right of free people in a free society to live out their lives in the same way you want to be free to live out yours - to be free from being discriminated against.
If General Washington were alive today, he'd give you a belt round the ear hole.
Boru
(July 22, 2015 at 6:10 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: If the OP is talking about what I think they're talking about (and, frankly, it's hard to tell with their atrocious spelling and grammar), then the Portland, Oregon bakery was apparently violating a 2007 anti-discrimination law for that state. Which, if the OP doesn't like it and they live in Oregon, they should vote for state legislators who will tweak/abolish the law. Welcome to representative democracy.Yup that lawsuit is what made me afraid in the first place. And No, I know that baking a wedding cake don't make me support it. But its against my sexual karma and conscience and I will pay for it in the next life if I do it. And assholes are fucking my next life by forcing lawsuits on me for doing things that protect my next life. Give me equal rights for my beliefs!
Now, refusal of service is a tricky issue. I'm not wise enough, legally speaking, to come up with a magic bullet potential solution. What I will say is that it seems like theists tend to think that people desiring to engage in an economic transaction of money <--> goods/services with them are actually asking for validation and approval. Which is just completely fucking idiotic. Sometimes a cake is just a cake. Baking it doesn't mean you're "involved" in the wedding. You're not on the guest list. Get the fuck over yourselves.
Personally, I think the only times a refusal of service is reasonable is either when the people desiring the service are causing a disturbance from the get-go, or if providing the service will lead to someone being harmed.
(July 22, 2015 at 6:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Dishonest logical fallacy right there. You know that cakes are no more drugs than a fcking banana is. Your just trying to make me look like a homophobe.Quote:Personally, I think the only times a refusal of service is reasonable is either when the people desiring the service are causing a disturbance from the get-go, or if providing the service will lead to someone being harmed.
Wait...does this mean I have to stop selling heroin and broken glass to toddlers?
STOPP INFRIGNING MY 1STR AMMENDMANT RIGHTS AND ACCOMIDATE MY BELEEFS!!!
Boru
This.
(July 22, 2015 at 10:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:This(July 22, 2015 at 6:03 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But what you cannot do is to refuse to trade with people whom - for whatever reason - you happen to dislike.Really? Forcing people to provide products or services against their will is slavery. Infringing on a person's freedom of association without a compelling state interest is fascism.
But apparently you believe it is enough of a compelling state interest to make someone bake you a cake against their will. Tell me honestly, do you seriously believe it is right to take away a families livelihood and fine them over $100,000 because they will not bake you a cake for whatever reason? Seems like a wildly out of control overreaction over what? Oooo someone hurt feelings. Stop whining. Pick up your toys and have your pretend wedding somewhere else.
(July 22, 2015 at 11:02 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: There would have been no reparations due if the Kleins (owners of the bakery) hadn't posted the complaint that the lesbian couple sent to the Oregon Department of Justice on Facebook, plastered it all over the right wing media, and made themselves out to be victims.What the fuck? So those guys had to pay 100,000$ for a gay couples **emotional damage**? Some gay got butthurt and the judge forces the couple that caused the butthurt to give up their life savings for simple petty things? You are a fucking left wing Marxist I'm done with your fucking bigottes ways. One day I hope some of you liberals pay for the asshole bigots and cause of pain that you are.
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:
BOLI Judgement Wrote: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.
