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

While you might want to pass your own judgement:1) The judge found that the bakers were NOT "rightfully refusing to do is compromise their religious integrity". They have no such right in this case, under state law.2) It seems that market did decide: public backlash forced the bakery to close (in Sept. 2013), and not the court judgement.When it comes to a bakery offering public goods, this couple is entitled, by state law, to expect the same service that any hetero couple might receive. No more, no less.

I think you're trolling, but you're missing the point entirely. If a store sells a good or service to one person, the store can't refuse that same good or service to another person based on some specific reasons. The law posted earlier was very clear that sexual orientation was one of those reasons. The distinction between selling a cake or taking part in a wedding doesn't matter because the baker presumably sold cakes for weddings or participated in weddings in the past. Call the transaction whatever you want, but you're simply providing a semantic argument that doesn't matter.

The seller can have whatever religious beliefs they want (a bakery is not a person and doesn't have religious beliefs), but that seller can't use those beliefs as a basis for discrimination. That's the law. The buyer can have whatever religious beliefs they want, but they can expect to buy the same good/service as someone of another religion since religious beliefs are protected under the posted law. Trying to fight that law is a losing battle (see Indiana). It is easily argued that restricting the freedom of store owners by preventing forms of discrimination against classes of people actually enhances the freedom of society at large, so that's probably why the law originated.

Good post. I'm not arguing what the law says. I am arguing that especially in this specific instance, its wrong. Its terrible actually.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

If you can't see the difference(or read back in the thread because it was already explained to another numb nuts) then you are a hopeless, aforementioned numb nuts

Spell it out for me. In what way is this different than Maurice Bessinger refusing to serve black people at his restaurants because his religious beliefs mandated a separation of the races? Or a proprietor refusing his or her services to an interfaith couple, because such partnerships are against his or beliefs?

I am not going to spell it out for you just because you are too lazy to read the damn thread. Don't confuse this by saying "you didnt spell it out so it isn't different." If you read the thread and then don't think this has been answered then come back to me.

If there is any question who the real scum is in this case, look no further than this:

"Gay activists" threw a huge fit because the bakery opened a gofundme to pay for the ridiculous court award to the greedy lesbos. The gofundme raised 109k in 8 hours but due to the activists it had to be taken down. Leave it to them to demand 135k for NOTHING and then not allow the bakery to rightfully raise the money. Luckily they'll get to keep the 109k

the real scum wrote:

If there is any question who the real scum is in this case, look no further than this:

You try to point us to find the real scum but you're the only one I see.

If the bakery closed and it was a corporation, would they even have have to pay the judgment? At this point it seems they could just declare bankruptcy?

the real scum wrote:

If there is any question who the real scum is in this case, look no further than this:

"Gay activists" threw a huge fit because the bakery opened a gofundme to pay for the ridiculous court award to the greedy lesbos. The gofundme raised 109k in 8 hours but due to the activists it had to be taken down. Leave it to them to demand 135k for NOTHING and then not allow the bakery to rightfully raise the money. Luckily they'll get to keep the 109k

Except that's not what happened. The campaign wasn't taken down "due to activists" .. it was taken because gofundme.com have a (very reasonable) protocol that doesn't allow raising campaigns for paying fines when people break the law.

wtfunny wrote:

the real scum wrote:

If there is any question who the real scum is in this case, look no further than this:

"Gay activists" threw a huge fit because the bakery opened a gofundme to pay for the ridiculous court award to the greedy lesbos. The gofundme raised 109k in 8 hours but due to the activists it had to be taken down. Leave it to them to demand 135k for NOTHING and then not allow the bakery to rightfully raise the money. Luckily they'll get to keep the 109k

Except that's not what happened. The campaign wasn't taken down "due to activists" .. it was taken because gofundme.com have a (very reasonable) protocol that doesn't allow raising campaigns for paying fines when people break the law.

Get your facts right playa, they were going to allow it until the activists threw a hissy fit. Hence the reason they were able to raise 109k before it was taken down. You think gofundme had no clue that a business from a national news story had an account raising over 100k? Yea right.

Did the fund violate the terms of gofundme or not?