Officials Move to Take Christian Bakers’ Home After Couple Refuses to Pay $135,000 to Lesbians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
It seems to me they are refusing to pay on principle, which I fully support. It also sounds like there may be more expenses here than the fine, and I find accusations that the Klein’s want to take the money and run to be absurd and a ridiculous round-about way for people to act selfish.

It also seems to me like some folks are just looking to grasp at anything and everything to say they are against the Kleins. I’m not sure if this is about looking cool in front of non-Catholics or trying to impress GLBTQ friends and family or what, but the technique is obvious and absurd.

I’m pointing this out, because it if can’t fool me, what chance is there of it fooling God?
Click to expand...
If people gave them money specifically to pay the judgement and they are not going to use the money for the intended purpose, the honorable thing to do is return it.

Edited to add this from reuters:
The Kleins appealed the ruling and have refused to pay, citing financial hardships, Bureau spokesman Charlie Burr said, adding that the agency is exploring options for collecting the money.
Click to expand...
The agency has given the Kleins the option of obtaining a bond or a line of credit, and has also agreed to hold funds in escrow until the appeals are settled, Burr said.
Click to expand...
Burr also said they have raised nearly $500,000 through a donation campaign.
Click to expand...
“They are entitled to a full and fair review of the case, but do not have the right to disregard a legally binding order,” Burr said.
Click to expand...
An attorney representing the Kleins, Herb Grey, said the couple has raised far less than $500,000, but declined to give an exact number. He also said they should not be obligated to pay the damages because the case is not settled
Click to expand...
 
Neofight said:
I feel your angst, but your reaction while understandable, might be a little over the top.

Why not the death penalty? Well, if we scrap away the sarcasm, the death penalty violates the premise of “an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth”, which is not against overwhelming vengeance, but about justice with restraint and compassion.

Is the penalty of taking the home over failure to fulfill judgment passed by a court of law? No. Contrary to popular belief, we are a nation of laws, and not necessarily a nation of justice…often law and justice in America don’t always appear to be in synch to those outside the legal profession.

The thing is, the court’s decision to take the home is not punishment for the offense ruled on, but for failure to carrying out the judgment of the court.

Unfortunate? Clearly. Rather severe? No, especially when considering our legal system is based on precedence. If a court waives a judgment for this case, it sets the stage that some or all other judgments by our courts can be ignored.

The result would be anarchy.
Click to expand...
you don’t think it severe that they might lose their home simply because according to their religious beliefs and because it their business they declined to bake a cake.

OJ Simpson had a 90 million dollar judgment against him for murdering 2 people and he never paid a dime.
 
This is insane. I suppose they are refusing to pay on principle, knowing eventually this will have to go all the way to SCOTUS. This was a clear violation on their 1st Amendment rights and hopefully the Supreme Court will hear the case and rule in their favor. I wish I had confidence that would happen, but SCOTUS has baffled me in recent years and I have only 50/50 confidence that SCOTUS will actually uphold the Constitution.
 
And yet, years after being found guilty of libel in the Tawana Brawley hoax, and assessed a multi-million dollar fine, Al Sharpton hasn’t paid, isn’t being pursued by the IRS, and in fact has been a White House guest 40+ times apparently. “Equal Justice Under Law” it says over the Supreme Court. Apparently not. Offending gays is clearly about the worse crime there is.
 
I’m no expert on this case, but it was discussed it on a local radio talk show the other day. On the show, it was stated that their lawyer advised them not to pay (even though they had already raised over $500k), because they are in the process of seeking an appeal. Supposedly the judge told them they could seek an appeal, but they must still pay the fine.

Again, I don’t know all of the details of the case, nor anything much about the people involved. But I don’t think it’s fair to make a judgement about them being horrible or scamming the public. There is always more to any story than what we get through any particular source. Might they be money grubbing leeches? Perhaps. But might there instead be a reasonable explanation for their refusal to pay?

I choose to assume people are decent human beings trying to do what they believe is right untless proven otherwise. In this case, I have enough reasonable doubt on the verdict of them being greedy.
 
7_Sorrows said:
you don’t think it severe that they might lose their home simply because according to their religious beliefs and because it their business they declined to bake a cake.

OJ Simpson had a 90 million dollar judgment against him for murdering 2 people and he never paid a dime.
Click to expand...
They might lose their home because they are refusing to pay, when they have been given the money to pay the fine.
 
zaffiroborant said:
They might lose their home because they are refusing to pay, when they have been given the money to pay the fine.
Click to expand...
However, as they are appealing, I think they shouldn’t have to pay anything until such time as the appeals process (and ultimately the SCOTUS ruling, which I think is where this is headed) is done. It’s not just about them. It’s about all Christians. Do we, or do we not, have conscience rights in this country? If you can be fined out of business and out of your home for refusing to bake a cake, can they force a Christian doctor to perform and abortion? Can they force a Catholic doctor to perform a sterilization procedure, or to euthanize someone? Does a Christian small business have to hire an openly gay or transgender person? Does a person who owns their home and is looking for a roommate have the right to turn someone down based on their religious beliefs?

As to what others have said, I think this wouldn’t even have been an issue if the bakery had been Muslim. Why should Christians have fewer conscience rights than Muslims?
 
DaddyGirl said:
Baking the cake went against their beliefs. So they did not bake the cake.
Breaking the law and discriminating against people, it seems, does not go against their beliefs. So now they must pay the consequences of that.
Naturally, it is their right to appeal…and it is their right to refuse to adhere to their court sentencing.
But they should not be surprised, then, if officials “move to take their home” (though I can’t find any other news article that says this is happening, so it sounds like an exaggeration by the biased publication…).

And, they should not ask people for money and take money from people to pay these fees, if that is what they did, and then not pay the fees.

And they should not claim that they are suffering “financial hardship”–as they did last week-- when they’ve been given what now amounts to ***a half a million dollars ***in donations to use as they need.

I agree that the amount of penalty is hefty. But I also agree that what the bakers did to the couple in public, beyond the cake issue, was horrid.

.
Click to expand...
The law the Klieins violated was an Oregon state law. The Oregon Department of Labor stated in a news announcement:
“businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.” I believe the appeal was denied. I don’t agree with the punishment, but this is the law of the state. The issue in question for me is the amount of “damages” in “suffering” by the couple. I’m not sure how that is determined. Nor do I understand where this case will go following loss of appeal. I’d be curious to see.
 
AKDee said:
However, as they are appealing, I think they shouldn’t have to pay anything until such time as the appeals process (and ultimately the SCOTUS ruling, which I think is where this is headed) is done. It’s not just about them. It’s about all Christians. Do we, or do we not, have conscience rights in this country? If you can be fined out of business and out of your home for refusing to bake a cake, can they force a Christian doctor to perform and abortion? Can they force a Catholic doctor to perform a sterilization procedure, or to euthanize someone? Does a Christian small business have to hire an openly gay or transgender person? Does a person who owns their home and is looking for a roommate have the right to turn someone down based on their religious beliefs?

As to what others have said, I think this wouldn’t even have been an issue if the bakery had been Muslim. Why should Christians have fewer conscience rights than Muslims?
Click to expand...
👍 Excellent post!
 
Before the lawsuit, 54% of Oregonians, a secular state, voted to keep marriage between man and woman.

And the baker would get to know the couple, their personal history, how they came together. She was truly defending herself and her artistic freedom as well as personal faith to decline to personally get involved with this couple.

It was the mother of one of the plaintiffs, not the two plaintiffs originally who returned to the shop and the mother saying she had changed her mind on such as gay marriage. And Mr Klein did quote Leviticus back to them when they came in.

The family has received death threats including their children.

There are other bakeries that would have done it.

In the meantime I have read of someone contacting gay bakers in Europe and asking them to design a Christian cake quoting the bible in regards to sodomy and the gays kicked them out.
 
AKDee said:
However, as they are appealing, I think they shouldn’t have to pay anything until such time as the appeals process (and ultimately the SCOTUS ruling, which I think is where this is headed) is done. It’s not just about them. It’s about all Christians. Do we, or do we not, have conscience rights in this country? If you can be fined out of business and out of your home for refusing to bake a cake, can they force a Christian doctor to perform and abortion? Can they force a Catholic doctor to perform a sterilization procedure, or to euthanize someone? Does a Christian small business have to hire an openly gay or transgender person? Does a person who owns their home and is looking for a roommate have the right to turn someone down based on their religious beliefs?

As to what others have said, I think this wouldn’t even have been an issue if the bakery had been Muslim. Why should Christians have fewer conscience rights than Muslims?
Click to expand...
The agency has given the Kleins the option of obtaining a bond or a line of credit, and has also agreed to hold funds in escrow until the appeals are settled, Burr said.
Click to expand...
All they had to do was show good faith, and turn the money given to them to pay the judgement over in escrow and they would not be having any of these troubles. They brought this on themselves.

And just because you think it wouldn’t have happened to a Muslim baker doesn’t make it so nor does it mean that Christians have few conscience rights than Muslims.
 
zaffiroborant said:
All they had to do was show good faith, and turn the money given to them to pay the judgement over in escrow and they would not be having any of these troubles. They brought this on themselves.

And just because you think it wouldn’t have happened to a Muslim baker doesn’t make it so nor does it mean that Christians have few conscience rights than Muslims.
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of think. It’s a fact that in America today Muslims are treated with kid gloves, and Christians are treated like second-class citizens. That starts right at the top with President Obama, and extends down through the media. It’s easily demonstrated with the way Pres. Obama will comment when Muslims are murdered and how he won’t comment when Christians are murdered- unless they’re black. It may be inconvenient, it may not be PC, but it’s the truth.
 
AKDee said:
It’s not a matter of think. It’s a fact that in America today Muslims are treated with kid gloves, and Christians are treated like second-class citizens. That starts right at the top with President Obama, and extends down through the media. It’s easily demonstrated with the way Pres. Obama will comment when Muslims are murdered and how he won’t comment when Christians are murdered- unless they’re black. It may be inconvenient, it may not be PC, but it’s the truth.
Click to expand...
What you’ve presented here is not fact it’s opinion.
 
AKDee said:
In the interest of being polite, I’ll agree to disagree on that.
Click to expand...
There would be nothing impolite in presenting facts to support your assertion. Though maybe derailing the thread could count, then again this breach could be avoided by starting a thread on the subject.
 
Civil disobedience is better than allowing government to win this regard. Let Oregon justify itself for throwing them in jail all because they wouldn’t make a cake.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Civil disobedience is better than allowing government to win this regard. Let Oregon justify itself for throwing them in jail all because they wouldn’t make a cake.
Click to expand...
Civil disobedience in support of a point of principle, even in a democracy, can be a noble act. But to be noble it does have to involve accepting the legal consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top