Judge rules baker should pay $135,000 for refusing gay wedding cake

Sally V wrote:

I think you may have missed the point of my conversation with wtfunny. I fully support the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual activities they desire, including anal sex. And I agree that a woman can achieve orgasm via anal sex.

What I take exception to is wtfunny's contention that "the majority of women who engage [in] anal sex also enjoy a higher frequency of orgasm". This was the remark I said was stupid. And the evidence presented in this thread proves I am right.

Weird, because the link(s) I provided proves you're wrong. On the other hand, the link you provi … oh, that's right, n/m.

What you actually initially argued with was something different.

Matthew Shepard was killed over methamphetamines and not because he was gay. This has been common knowledge for some time.

The link you gave me was a dead end. Fruitful links supporting my position have been posted.

I did not change what I was arguing. My position has consistently been that most female anal sex participants do NOT experience orgasm.

Sally V wrote:

The link you gave me was a dead end. Fruitful links supporting my position have been posted.

I did not change what I was arguing. My position has consistently been that most female anal sex participants do NOT experience orgasm.

I posted multiple links that show that contention of yours wrong. And the links others posted supported precisely what I was saying.

Your original contention had to do with the position of the clitoris. .. and links have been posted that show what I said there was correct as well.

Drugs not hugs wrote:

Matthew Shepard was killed over methamphetamines and not because he was gay. This has been common knowledge for some time.

This is not "common knowledge"; it's very much in dispute.

The greater point … rather than quibble over your endless bs ..

Forunr wrote:

The couple is forcing their beliefs on the baker. They need to find a gay baker.

Sure, separate but equal....

Wasn't that argument settled last century?

You are wrong. Saying otherwise does not change the facts.

wtfunny wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

Or, in this case, the application of law can be immoral.

Claiming that a bakery is a "public accommodation" is a joke.

Also, there's a difference between discriminating against people and events. In many cases, these businesses serve gays willingly, but it is the event of the gay wedding where they draw the line.

I understand there must be emotional challenges with being gay, but you need to respect the beliefs of people who are uncomfortable with gay marriage. It doesn't matter if you think religion is a fairy tale.

On the other hand, communion, confirmation, or a bar mitzvah, for example, is not so public. It's an entirely a religious ceremony, or ritual, and does not involve a public office. A marriage does.

Wait, are you saying a baker or florist can refuse to serve a bar mitzvah? Doesn't a Jew have the same rights to that public accommodation as the gay couple?

But if you're going to go down that line of thought, marriage is a religious-based ceremony, and the government's decision to be involved in it doesn't change that. If a bar mitzvah gets special treatment as a "private event," surely a wedding should as well.

659A.400¹

Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.

(2) A place of public accommodation does not include:

(a) A Department of Corrections institution as defined in ORS 421.005 (Definitions).

(b) A state hospital as defined in ORS 162.135 (Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205).

(c) A youth correction facility as defined in ORS 420.005 (Definitions).

(d) A local correction facility or lockup as defined in ORS 169.005 (Definitions for ORS 169.005 to 169.677 and 169.730 to 169.800).

(e) An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675; 2013 c.429 §1; 2013 c.530 §4]

659A.403¹

Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or

(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.

(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]

Oregon state law couldn't be clearer. Don't want to bake gay wedding cakes? Move somewhere where there are no laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

One of the women, whose name was redacted to protect her privacy, listed 88 symptoms as grounds for compensation. The other, whose name was also redacted, listed 90.

Examples of symptoms include “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

The lesson from this case is that if a woman is refused cake she will have almost 100 grounds for compensation. In fact this corresponds well to my experience.

Replace "gay" with "black" or "colored" would so many be up in arms over this? Religion was used to discriminate against african americans as well as women.

Some Christians need to reread the bible. Jesus took in all sort of folks.

Alan

jewbacca wrote:

wtfunny wrote:

On the other hand, communion, confirmation, or a bar mitzvah, for example, is not so public. It's an entirely a religious ceremony, or ritual, and does not involve a public office. A marriage does.

Wait, are you saying a baker or florist can refuse to serve a bar mitzvah? Doesn't a Jew have the same rights to that public accommodation as the gay couple?

But if you're going to go down that line of thought, marriage is a religious-based ceremony, and the government's decision to be involved in it doesn't change that. If a bar mitzvah gets special treatment as a "private event," surely a wedding should as well.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion unless the people involved desire it. Marriage by law is nothing more than a legal contract between two people combining assests and tax burden.

"Marriage" then has a two-sided definition....the ceremony between two people promising to be together forever and the legal binding document the goverment cares about.

Alan

runningart2004 wrote:

Jesus took in all sort of folks.

But he didn't steal $135,000 from those who didn't want to follow him.

wtfunny wrote:

Do you know what the rate of suicide is among gay teenagers compared to straight kids? And any idea why it's so high?

Do you know why I don't give a damn? Because regardless of sexuality, those who kill themselves are weak.

Wtfunny,

You keep using blacks as an example to prove a point. Here's what you don't get: the bakery is not refusing service to gays. If those chicks would have come in and ordered a cake they would have been given a cake. The bakery is refusing to play a part in an EVENT. The event being a gay wedding. Again, while I think religion is stupid, I certainly believe those rights should be protected just as much as your right to choose your sexual orientation.

The cake would have been part of the event, not the bakery.

Obvious point wrote:

The cake would have been part of the event, not the bakery.

Who would have baked the cake? Hmmm....I wonder if providing goods and services for an event would make someone feel like a part of the event?

You have an interesting handle because you completely whiffed on the obvious point: They are not refusing to provides goods and services to gays. I would be willing to bet they've have served plenty of gays. What they are rightfully refusing to do is compromise their religious integrity to support something that they are rightfully allowed to be opposed to. Now if word gets out and people don't want to support this bakery due to them not supporting gay marriage, then so be it. I have no problem with that. But for anyone to argue this couple is entitled to ANYTHING and that the bakery should be put out of business not due to a free market but due to a stereotypical overly sensitive, entitled, self-righteous lesbian couple in court is out of their damn mind.