Oregon Christian Bakers Pay Over $135,000 in State-Ordered ‘Emotional Damages’ to Lesbians

[mjwise]

Wait until there’s legal protection for the rights of the obese. This is a far more numerically-significant group of people who are routinely excluded by businesses. I used to be a large woman and the vast majority of shops simply didn’t stock anything in my size. I could have been offended and upset, I suppose.

Read post #16.

The issue in this case was not that the plaintiffs wanted a kind of cake the bakery didn’t make. The bakery did not went to sell the cakes they would make to a lesbian couple.

 

[Isca]

Read post #16.

The issue in this case was not that the plaintiffs wanted a kind of cake the bakery didn’t make. The bakery did not went to sell the cakes they would make to a lesbian couple.

I understand that difference. However, to claim compensation for emotional distress seems a bit excessive. I am sympathetic to the couple’s legal challenge as a general principle, but I’m also sympathetic to the bakery who obviously felt anguished over this.

 

[Bookcat]

Expensive cake…

Such is nonsense and contrary to reason.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

I understand that difference. However, to claim compensation for emotional distress seems a bit excessive. I am sympathetic to the couple’s legal challenge as a general principle, but I’m also sympathetic to the bakery who obviously felt anguished over this.

It is excessive. It’s also antiquated. Legal consequences like this, along with the social pressure, set up an environment where companies will cease to illegally discriminate in this way in the future. I think legal challenges like this will virtually cease to exist in the immediate future.

How many companies these days are sued over refusing to serve interracial couples? This is soon going to be a problem of the past.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Although gay marriage is not identical to interracial marriage, I think comparisons are often apt.

Comparing that:

Some used to think that people should only marry others of the same race.

Some used to think that people can only marry others of the opposite sex.

The major difference is the extent, across time and culture, of the ‘some’ who ‘used to think’.

Time will tell about whether the comparison I made here is apt. I suspect opposition to gay marriage will soon be so unpopular, as unpopular as opposition to interracial marriage, that this sort of legal action will be completely unnecessary.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Although gay marriage is not identical to interracial marriage, I think comparisons are often apt.

Comparing that:

Some used to think that people should only marry others of the same race.

Some used to think that people can only marry others of the opposite sex.

The major difference is the extent, across time and culture, of the ‘some’ who ‘used to think’.

Time will tell about whether the comparison I made here is apt. I suspect opposition to gay marriage will soon be so unpopular, as unpopular as opposition to interracial marriage, that this sort of legal action will be completely unnecessary.

Now there’s social progress: people should deny their conscience and religious convictions in order to conform to what is popular. Yeah, let’s all feel encouraged that the goal is a permanent junior high school society, running on a mix of external pressure of punishment from authorities and peer pressure. O, brave new world!

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Now there’s social progress: people should deny their conscience and religious convictions in order to conform to what is popular. Yeah, let’s all feel encouraged that the goal is a permanent junior high school society, running on a mix of external pressure of punishment from authorities and peer pressure. O, brave new world!

People should reform their conscience and religious convictions because both are mistaken. It is fortunate that in this case the right answer is becoming popular, and the wrong answer unpopular. Sometimes people need a push in the right direction.

I would welcome a serious conversation about gay marriage. I recommend anyone interested in such a discussion write me here privately. I started such a discussion on gay marriage here a few years ago and it was quickly derailed, so private conversation one on one would probably be best.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Maybe some of the people looking for comfort will get lucky.

My main interest is the truth. I’m confident that my position on this issue is correct, and happy to discuss it with anyone who is interested.

 

[HelenRose]

I have often wondered what I would have done. Probably, if I were a baker, I would have gone ahead and made the cake. I would have done it myself in order to protect my employees from harassment from those who would expect them to do the cake. As a photographer I would probably take photos. I would be professional, on time and competent. I would not frown nor grimace. But, I would not smile.

For the life of me, I can not imagine having anyone at my wedding whom I disapproved of and this couple certainly disapproved of the bakers.

 

[Horton]

Although gay marriage is not identical to interracial marriage, I think comparisons are often apt.

Comparing that:

Some used to think that people should only marry others of the same race.

Some used to think that people can only marry others of the opposite sex.

The major difference is the extent, across time and culture, of the ‘some’ who ‘used to think’.

Time will tell about whether the comparison I made here is apt. I suspect opposition to gay marriage will soon be so unpopular, as unpopular as opposition to interracial marriage, that this sort of legal action will be completely unnecessary.

Did you somehow misunderstand the part of Catholic Answers Forum that is Catholic?

 

[exnihilo]

I think there very much is a comparison. The similarity is that the government has asserted that people have the right to not be discriminated against and have the right to be served. The government has asserted that failures to serve people can be subject to civil fines and judgements. Both cases involve discriminatory judgments and refusal to serve. The difference is only in whether the judgment is legal or not.

Once the government was granted the power to penalize personal opinions then you are left with deciding which opinions are subject to penalty. Why anyone would want this to be a political matter is beyond me. But most people seem fine with it. They just don’t like it when their personal opinions are the ones ruled illegal. I personally object to the whole notion the government should be rooting out discrimination. Western governments, so far as I know the only governments engaged in this enterprise, allow abortion and same sex marriage. Any government with such a skewed morality, and over much more objective issues, shouldn’t be given such power.

 

[AbideWithMe]

People should reform their conscience and religious convictions because both are mistaken. It is fortunate that in this case the right answer is becoming popular, and the wrong answer unpopular. Sometimes people need a push in the right direction.

I would welcome a serious conversation about gay marriage. I recommend anyone interested in such a discussion write me here privately. I started such a discussion on gay marriage here a few years ago and it was quickly derailed, so private conversation one on one would probably be best.

You are saying, in essence, that the government should act as a parent all the time, and the citizens should be permanently juvenilized and immature, unable to form their own consciences or speak as adults to those in power.

 

[Piney_Woods]

They could have done so. If they had done so, then this bakery wouldn’t serve as an example to discourage future illegal discrimination.

Do you think a bakery should be compelled by the law to make a cake and adorn it with any given offensive, though not illegal, statement?

 

[Piney_Woods]

Although gay marriage is not identical to interracial marriage, I think comparisons are often apt.
.

Thinking it doesn’t make it so. Your race is defined by (one aspect of) what you* are* (see, for example, Rachel Dolezal); your sexual identity is defined, at least in a public sense, by what you do.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

People should reform their conscience and religious convictions because both are mistaken. It is fortunate that in this case the right answer is becoming popular, and the wrong answer unpopular. Sometimes people need a push in the right direction.

I would welcome a serious conversation about gay marriage. I recommend anyone interested in such a discussion write me here privately. I started such a discussion on gay marriage here a few years ago and it was quickly derailed, so private conversation one on one would probably be best.

Should these people should be thrown in jail, with the full force of the government for refusing to make a cake, a cake that would involve in some way artistic expression, artistic expression which would be dictated by the lesbian couple to include whatever symbols they want, which would directly conflict with the expression of the cake makers? They should be thrown in jail for that?

I do not understand the argument here, because someone refuses to do something for someone else the government should then force that person? Let’s say this couple makes the cake, are they allowed to make it in the fashion they deem appropriate? Are they allowed to inscribe Romans 1:26-27

You would call this a tyranny and not law if the government were aiding a christian agenda and forcing a homosexual to do something they did not want to do.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Should these people should be thrown in jail, with the full force of the government for refusing to make a cake, a cake that would involve in some way artistic expression, artistic expression which would be dictated by the lesbian couple to include whatever symbols they want, which would directly conflict with the expression of the cake makers? They should be thrown in jail for that?

No. I think at present fines are acceptable. Very soon, I think it will be better simply to ignore these people, just like we ignore active members of the KKK and those of that same mindset. There will be no more need for legal force. They can say what they like, the ACLU will defend their right to say it where they like, and the rest of the world will move on with their lives.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Thinking it doesn’t make it so. Your race is defined by (one aspect of) what you* are* (see, for example, Rachel Dolezal); your sexual identity is defined, at least in a public sense, by what you do.

Race is not a matter of choice, sexual attraction likewise is not a matter of choice. Marriage is a matter of choice.

No one forces a black person to marry a white person. They can avoid the marriage if they like.

No one forces a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. They can avoid the marriage if they like.

The material point is that in each case they can marry who they like. The government now won’t discriminate in either case.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Did you somehow misunderstand the part of Catholic Answers Forum that is Catholic?

I think that most Catholics will change their minds about this issue if they haven’t already.

 

[Piney_Woods]

Race is not a matter of choice, sexual attraction likewise is not a matter of choice. Marriage is a matter of choice.

No one forces a black person to marry a white person. They can avoid the marriage if they like.

No one forces a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. They can avoid the marriage if they like.

The material point is that in each case they can marry who they like. The government now won’t discriminate in either case.

The way you choose to live your life, assuming you are of sound mind and body, is a choice. It is wrong to discriminate against a person because of the race he or she is born into. It is not inherently wrong to refuse to provide a service, especially a non-essential service (I assume Ms. Cryer is physically able to bake a cake or ask a friend to do so) to someone who has made and is living out lifestyle choices that conflict with the service provider’s deeply held beliefs.

As to:
" I think that most Catholics will change their minds about this issue if they haven’t already," you are wrong. There is a fundamental incompatibility.
A happy and prosperous New Year to you and yours.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

It is not inherently wrong to refuse to provide a service, especially a non-essential service… to someone who has made and is living out lifestyle choices that conflict with the service provider’s deeply held beliefs.

Maybe interracial marriage is a choice that conflicts with a service provider’s deeply held beliefs. In this case, what do you think should be done?

A happy and prosperous New Year to you and yours.

And you as well. Happy New Year and Feast of St Mary, Mother of God.