DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... And so it begins

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/0...tcmp=latestnews

Changing the everyday lives is real. (Remember: FWIW, I am in favor of gay marriage). I am not posting this as support or opposition to gay marriage. I am posting this because who gets to say whose rights are violated?

Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians

The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.

Click here to follow Todd on Facebook for Conservative Conversation!

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

According to the BOLI, the lesbian couple suffered great angst. One of the women “felt depressed and questioned whether there was something inherently wrong with the sexual orientation she was born with.” They said she had “difficulty controlling her emotions and cried a lot.”

The other woman “experienced extreme anger, outrage, embarrassment, exhaustion, frustration, intense sorrow and shame” simply because the Kleins refused to provide them with a wedding cake.

Jeez. That must have been one heck of a cake.

It sounds as if the state of Oregon is sending a stern warning to Christian business owners like the Kleins.

“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 ruling states. “The ability to enter public places, to shop and dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

Does The Bureau of Labor and Industry truly believe that Christians who want to follow the teachings of their faith are bigots?

It certainly seems to me the only entity guilty of unfettered bigotry is the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry.

Since the day they turned away the lesbian couple’s business, the Kleins have suffered greatly. Their business was subjected to boycotts and pickets. LGBT activists and their supporters threatened any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

Mrs. Klein told me her five children were subjected to death threats -- death threats for simply refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. That doesn’t sound very tolerant to me.

Eventually, the bullying became so severe the family had to shut down their retail store and Mr. Klein had to take a job picking up garbage. Today, Mrs. Klein continues to make cakes in her home.

“We were just running our business the best we could – following the Lord’s example,” she said. “I’m just blown away by the ruling. They are punishing us for not participating in the wedding.”

Mr. Klein said he plans on appealing the ruling and had harsh words for BOLI Commissioner Brad Avakian.

“This man has no power over me,” Klein said. “He seems to think he can tell me to be quiet. That doesn’t sit well with me and I refuse to comply.”

Mr. Klein accused the BOLI of ordering him to not speak publicly about the case – an order he said is unconstitutional.

“When my constitutional freedoms have been violated by the state I’m going to speak out,” he said. “That’s the way it is.”

Regardless, the Klein case has demonstrated once again that gay rights trump religious liberty. Other Christian business owners should pay close attention.

The Kleins had a choice. They could obey the government or they could obey God. They chose God – and now they must pay the price.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is "God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter@ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.


[u][/u]

I'm lost on this whole cake thing.

You're in business to make cakes, someone comes in to buy a cake and you tell them no because you don't agree with who they have decided to fall in love with? Did they have a sign saying, we only serve bigoted people?

You're not going to the wedding or being part of the wedding, you're making a cake.
So a hetro couple buys a cake and they have a gay friend who's attending the wedding does this baker deny the hetro couple because a gay is going to be eating it?

This just seems silly to me.

Well...I don't think it's limited to a cake thing...but...

I think most wedding cakes are delivered to the ceremony by the baker. The baker in this case cannot perform the work (and possibly deliver the cake) without violating their own religious beliefs as said performance is viewed - by them personally - as supporting the gay marriage.

Replace 'cake' with flowers, food, alcohol, entertainment and it's all the same.

I se no way this is allowed to stand. Their tramping all over their rights. It's their business, they can serve who they want, it's against their beliefs, who wouldn't want to follow their beliefs? I would counter sue and have a federal judge uphold it, then maybe this silliness will stop. And who came up with the BS about being born that way? It's a choice, anything else is just an excuse to not have to face the truth.

This is only the beginning.

Christians are not only to be told that they cannot believe as they do, but they are to be punished as heavily as possible if they follow their beliefs publicly.

This should get overturned on appeals. I cannot believe that a judge even ruled this way in the first place.

The world has gone nutty, indeed.

No, it's *not* within their rights.

Agreed.

If you believe they shouldn't have been sued then you should also believe that businesses can deny service to people on the basis of race. Or that you should deny service to a muslim because you disagree with those teaching. I don't see why those who preach God's love should limit themselves to just one type of hate crime.

Asking to be able to break the law because of your religious beliefs and being turned down isn't persecution. If you announce loudly that you're doing something illegal, expect to face the consequences. I would love it if someone subverted this absurd philosophy and claimed that as a teller, Chase Bank is forcing them to go against their Christian beliefs and engage in practices of usury.

No doubt that this is a sticky situation. What makes this different is the right to religious freedom. I know of no religious belief to allow inaction due to race.

Overturning the ability to discriminate on race fits within our constitution and should have been done earlier than it was and with less pain. However, forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs is altogether different and goes against our constitution.

Freedom from religious persecution could easily be labeled as the #1 reason why this country even exists.

I might believe differently if someone held a magic cure for...say...cancer and was the only person to hold it and they withheld that cure from anyone based on a religious belief. I believe that human life would trump religious belief...but that's about it.

The teller is free to get a different job though...like a business owner is free to find and serve another customer...and the person wanting a service is free to find another supplier.

And if the wedding cake baker can't perform their services for the general public (or feel the need to announce their intent to break the law) maybe they're in the wrong line of work.

What law are they breaking? Whose right trumps the other?

Whether they are in the right line of work is completely irrelevant.

hopefully this gets overturned.

Can't believe there is even a debate on this.

What if interracial couples were against someone's religion?

Willie, this is one of the laws they are breaking.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/13

As far as what alleged right the baker is being denied, I've yet to see it.

Also, if selling a cake being used in a wedding is being forced to participate in the wedding, then selling a gun being used in a murder is participating in the murder.

I can't believe there is a debate either. Religious freedom and good 'ole basic liberty should rule here.



They should choose not to deal with that someone.

What happens if a gay baker refuses to do a hetero marriage? What would be his/her grounds to refuse service?

The right to freedom of religion.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. If a person believes that they should not do something due to a religious belief, how can that be taken from them?

Again, which rule of law trumps the other?

if it's because they are straight, then the baker is breaking the law. Who would suggest any different?

This is a tough situation. On one side it's similar to "We will not serve blacks", but there is the freedom to practice religion case in our constitution.

I wonder what will happen if public opinion gets ahold of this? I'm sure their business will drop if it was left alone.

So...a person making a personal decision to NOT do something based on their religious beliefs is akin to a person selling a gun to another person where that other person commits a crime?

Ok...however, I can't put those things together at all.

Better to ask what might happen if a baker refuses the gay marriage cake...then a hetero buys the cake and gives it to the gay couple and then tells the baker what was done with the cake. Too bad for the baker in that case.

I don't think anyone would suggest any different. There is no basis to refuse service.

When Jesus feeds the 5000 with five loaves of bread and two fish, I can't find anywhere in the Matthew where he took a census of the 5000 to make certain only the "right" kind of people were being fed.

I can't say for sure but chances are really good that 5000 of those 5000 were sinners.

What happened to love the sinner but hate the sin?

Where is the compassion of the religious to take care of all people, not just the one's "on their side"? Where is the love Jesus taught? I'm sure prostitutes were sinners but that didn't stop Jesus from bringing one in as part of his disciples.

What if the couple were a hetro couple living in sin, has anyone ever turned them down for goods or services offered the general public?

To me, if you're open to the public, you're open to everyone regardless of anything else, they are the public, not the public you can pick and choose from.

Talk about sinners...

Christians sell beer to alcoholics at convenient stores.

Christians sell cakes to people getting married for the second, third and forth times.

Yet selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is outrageous?

I guess it's "pick a sin season".

don't forget christians sell cakes to straight people who don't even believe in God in the first place.

It seems obvious to me Swish that "some Christians" have chosen a particular sin with which to go to war with. It's as obvious as can be. And not the first time in our nations history that they've used the Bible in their attempt to do this.

Sexual orientation is a protected class in the state of Oregon. The law they broke is here - http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx

If they wanted to run a business that doesn't serve the community at large, they should have opened a club that only provided services at church functions.

I just don't get it man.

you're right, it's definitely "some". the problem is they hold the power, and are the most vocal.

I just can not stand the constant double standard.

At this point, this is what i believe: Christians don't want a free country, like the USA is suppose to be. they want "free" within the parameters of the bible. They want the bible to trump the constitution. They want a Government ran off of religious ideologies.

You know what that sounds like to me? Christian version of Sharia Law.

The difference in your example is that Jesus was not participating in the sin of the people present. He was trying to reach sinners, and turn them away from their sins ...... not encouraging their sin.

Someone baking a cake is not participating in the marriage. How baking a cake is a sin is beyond me? Cake, loaves and fish, they all feed hungry people. I fail to see the difference in my example.

My example also showed how inclusive Jesus was and the Christians lately, ehh, not so much.

The "rights" of the bakers are not being infringed upon! They're not being forced to be gay, or be "gay married." Nothing about selling a cake to a gay couple who are going to be married (in a ceremony that the bakers will even feel isn't valid in the eyes of God) is a sin! It's a political statement more than it is exercising a religious statement or practice.

I'm sorry, legally they don't have a leg to stand on.

Want to live in a state where the laws of the land are the same as the religious laws and discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's against people you don't agree with? Go bake cakes for ISIS.

It seems to me at the point people have already decided to get married, you aren't encouraging them. There are TONS of sins that Christians service people with.

How about wedding cakes for people getting married multiple times? How about those alcoholics that come into a convenient store several times a day? Small town America knows "George is getting married for his seventh time", yet they bake George a cake.

How about those young people buying rolling papers for joints and flavored cigars for blunts?

This is ridiculous.

It's beyond ridiculous. Temper tantrums thrown by grown adults because the world isn't what they want it to be. Show me the clerk or the florist or the baker who never sins or never facilitates someone who is sinning, and maybe I'll have some sympathy. But what is happening here amounts to arbitrary political actions. "Why do I have to obey laws I don't believe in?" is pretty much the question being asked, and the answer is obvious.

Nevermind the legal side.

135k ??? Not to mention the legal fees involved.

Really, you want to make a statement, sure, ask for the amount maybe 2x the amount that your cake cost. But 135k, pays for the wedding, and, Oh yes I am going there, The "dream honeymoon".

Freedom of choice.

The temper tantrums seeming are thrown by people like you. Suing someone because they won't make you a cake. Pffftttt. It is a money-making and publicity grabbing stunt and freaking people like you buy right into it.

Exactly, the same freedom of choice used when these people signed a contract. What contract you ask? The contract to form and run a business in the state of Oregon (C Corp/S Corp/LLC/etc). If they didn't want to serve gays then they shouldn't have formed a business.

Baking a cake is not a sin, however, the point these Christians are making is that by having to personally take part in a ceremony their faith says is sinful can be taken as condoning and approving of that sinful ceremony.

If a Christian is working at a marriage of 2 gay people,what is the message they are sending? I believe that it is that they approve of the marriage of 2 gay people, in violation of their faith.

That is why Christians do not want to be forced into gay weddings. It would be like a devoted Christian being asked to make a cake saying "Congratulations on cheating on your spouse for the 4th time!". The message is inconsistent with who they are in their faith, so they would not want to do it.

We have to have the right to be who our faith says we are. Christianity does not call for violence against people, but it does not say that we should offer approval of sins either.

What if someone serves a wedding, but it turns out they don't follow kosher law? This is the kind of fringe argument you deal with here. How far can religion be protected without it looking like our country only favors Christianity?