The bakers and the lesbians--what really happened

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/ore...hed-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

The massive fine wasn't for discrimination, but for publishing their home address. They knew they were bringing trouble for the lesbians, they deserved every penny of the fine.

 

[fast]

Edited out

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/ore...hed-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

The massive fine wasn't for discrimination, but for publishing their home address. They knew they were bringing trouble for the lesbians, they deserved every penny of the fine.

Loren,

Before you argue on behalf of the alledged reason for "the massive fine", it is necessary to verify rawstory's characterization (which was borrowed from the identity group ideology blog "Love, Joy, Feminism"). And that blog seems to echo a similar, but more nuanced, take:

The Bowman-Cryers weren’t awarded $135,000 only for the pain and suffering they experienced as a result of being refused service based on their sexual orientation but also as a result of the Kleins’ decision to dox them and then go on national media across the country. The media firestorm brought with it death threats, harassment, and the possibility of losing their children. The court found that the Bowman-Cryers suffered intensely, and that their suffering was a direct reaction of the Kleins’ actions both in refusing the cake and in keeping their refusal in the media. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...them-and-their-kids.html#sthash.Xf8jLCOW.dpuf

It is understandable that in light of widespread disgust with the massive fine, partisans are now seeking to rationalize the judgement. But did Rawstory or LJF fact check, or did they just intentionally create and sensationalize biased perceptions?

SSM supporting Volokh Conspiracy says, politely, that it this story is hookum (and that if it were true, then it is legal nonsense). In their recent post:

No, the Oregon bakers weren’t fined for publishing the complainant’s home address, or for otherwise publicizing the complaint against them

It’s true that the agency sought to hold the bakery owners liable for publicizing the complaint against them. But the Commissioner expressly rejected this theory of liability (emphasis added):

In its closing argument, the Agency asked the forum to award Complainants $75,000 each in emotional suffering damages stemming directly from the denial of service, In addition, the Agency asked the forum to award damages to Complainants for emotional suffering they experienced as a result of the media and social media attention generated by the case from January 29, 2013, the date AK posted LBC’s DOJ complaint on his Facebook page, up to the date of hearing. The Agency’s theory of liability is that since Respondents brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding Complainants, it was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact Complainants, making Respondents liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by Complainants. The Agency also argues that Respondents are liable for negative third party social media directed at Complainants because it was a foreseeable consequence of the media attention.

The Commissioner concludes that complainants’ emotional harm related to the denial of service continued throughout the period of media attention and that the facts related solely to emotional harm resulting from media attention do not adequately support an award of damages. No further analysis regarding the media attention as a causative factor is, therefore, necessary.

Now I think the Agency’s theory, presented in its capacity as essentially as the civil case equivalent of a prosecutor, is outrageous: People have a First Amendment right to publicize the complaints against them, including the names of the complainants, notwithstanding the possible bad publicity for the complainants (just as complainants have to be free to publicize the names of the people they are complaining about). And while it’s possible that rules requiring the redaction of the complainants’ home addresses might be constitutional (but see p. 1115 of this article), I know of no such requirement under Oregon law.

It would seem that the LJF and Rawstory website authors were reckless, assuming that the AGENCY's propoganda is the same as the actual stated reasons (and non-reasons) in actual judgement. If so, there is no reason to defend 'the reason' that does not exist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rwise-publicizing-the-complaint-against-them/

 

[laughing dog]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/ore...hed-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

The massive fine wasn't for discrimination, but for publishing their home address. They knew they were bringing trouble for the lesbians, they deserved every penny of the fine.

They deserve every penny of the fine for the violation of Oregon law and the emotional distress inflicted from on the couple from the denial of service. All things considered, I think they got off rather lightly.

 

[Cerberus]

Would it really be beyond the wit of man (or in this case woman) to order the bloody cake from the bakery, but buy their own 'topping' separately? I often wonder how much this kind of thing is either agenda-driven attention-seeking, or a mischievous attempt to extract money from perceived 'bigots': there was a case like that here two or three years ago, where a couple of male homosexuals scammed a couple of bed-and-breakfast owners into bankruptcy.

 

[laughing dog]

Would it really be beyond the wit of man (or in this case woman) to order the bloody cake from the bakery, but buy their own 'topping' separately? I often wonder how much this kind of thing is either agenda-driven attention-seeking, or a mischievous attempt to extract money from perceived 'bigots': there was a case like that here two or three years ago, where a couple of male homosexuals scammed a couple of bed-and-breakfast owners into bankruptcy.

Whether it is beyond the wit of the customer is irrelevant: the bakery violated Oregon law.

 

[RavenSky]

Would it really be beyond the wit of man (or in this case newbie) to be familiar with the actual facts of the case before spouting off on a message board and spreading the ignorance?

As to the case, I too often wonder how much this kind of thing is either agenda-driven attention-seeking or just blatant hateful bigotry, but of course I am referring to the bakery owners. They are the ones who publicized the case. They are the ones who released the names AND ADDRESS of the couple, thereby exposing the couple and their children to harrassment and death threats. The bakers are the ones who sought out right wing hate groups in an agenda-driven attention-seeking attempt to get their 15 minutes of fame for their admitted bigotry.

And to be crystal clear, this was not ever, in any way, a case about a cake-topper. The baker asked for the names of the bride and groom for his paperwork (not for the cake), but when he heard the names of two women he called their family an "abomination" and misquoted bible passages at one of the women and her mother.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ng_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false

there was a case like that here two or three years ago, where a couple of male homosexuals scammed a couple of bed-and-breakfast owners into bankruptcy.

Given how badly you mangled the fact of the case in this thread, I am sure you will understand why I doubt the veracity of your claim about the B&B and require a link to detailed source about that alleged case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I found this case. They had to pay the couple about $5k US. Had to sell because of alleged legal fees and death threats, porn, what not.

 

[fromderinside]

Its like this. Exactly.

http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/BOLI-sweetcakes.pdf

Enjoy all you people who think that conducting business by religion supersede constitutional and legal constraints, or, that a business conforms to requirements for individuals. Its gonna be painful. But that's the way things are when one tried to buy and sell using religious belief as a blunt instrument.

 

[RavenSky]

I found this case. They had to pay the couple about $5k US. Had to sell because of alleged legal fees and death threats, porn, what not.

Could be the incident he is referring to, in which case the article you found - despite how conservatively lopsided the reporting is - did not support Cerberus' claim that "a couple of male homosexuals scammed a couple of bed-and-breakfast owners into bankruptcy"

I will also note that the inn-owners appear to still be in business, and still discriminating against "unmarried couples"

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples. Thank you.

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/bookingform.html

What I find amusing is that they have gone to lengths to define "marriage" for their own purposes, but their definition means they won't allow second-marriage couples either. Do they ask for marriage certificates before booking the rooms?

Also, a lot of their Travel Advisor and Google reviews are terrible.

 

[ronburgundy]

I found this case. They had to pay the couple about $5k US. Had to sell because of alleged legal fees and death threats, porn, what not.

Could be the incident he is referring to, in which case the article you found - despite how conservatively lopsided the reporting is - did not support Cerberus' claim that "a couple of male homosexuals scammed a couple of bed-and-breakfast owners into bankruptcy"

It sounds like they went out of business because they were a lousy business and could not attract customers, which is why they couldn't pay their legal fees. If I walked into a B&B and saw the scene below, I'd be scared of leaving there alive.

Maybe part of that loss of business is due to decent people not wanting to give indecent people their business. I'm sure they won't sell to a gay couple, so it would be awesome if someone bought it, then resold it to a gay couple.

 

[dismal]

Whatever you think of the underlying case, causing emotional distress sure sounds like a civil tort claim to be argued before a court, not a crime to be discretionarily enforced by some low level government agency.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could be the incident he is referring to, in which case the article you found - despite how conservatively lopsided the reporting is - did not support Cerberus' claim that "a couple of male homosexuals scammed a couple of bed-and-breakfast owners into bankruptcy"

I will also note that the inn-owners appear to still be in business, and still discriminating against "unmarried couples"

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples. Thank you.

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/bookingform.html

What I find amusing is that they have gone to lengths to define "marriage" for their own purposes, but their definition means they won't allow second-marriage couples either. Do they ask for marriage certificates before booking the rooms?

Also, a lot of their Travel Advisor and Google reviews are terrible.

Their Google reviews seem to fall into two camps, people that stayed there and thought it was really good and people that don't like their views and likely didn't stay there but left a review anyway.

 

[Bronzeage]

I once answered the phone to hear a woman say, "I have a complaint about one of your mechanics." My first thought is someone left footprints on the floor mats, again. This person goes on to explain she works in a restaurant and my employee was very rude to her. I told her I would look into it. A few minutes later the mechanic in question shows up. He had called in a take out order. When he got there, she told him it would be ready in few minutes. He sat twenty minute before asking again. She couldn't find his order and claimed he had not called it in. While this discussion continued, a person came in with a take out order and said it was the wrong order. Of course, it was the mechanics lunch, which was now 30 minutes late. The cashier wanted him to pay for it, but he said something about what she could do with it and left.

Handling customer complaints was part of my job, but this was the first time I was asked to handle someone else's customer. It was also the first time a business called to complain about a customer.

It's actually a principle of good business to never publicly complain about the people who give you money. It's just dumb. Engaging in public shaming is even stupider. The bakery owners apparently didn't know this simple rule.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

DON'T ASK -- DON'T TELL should be the rule.

Should a Jewish baker be required to provide a cake to a Neo-Nazi birthday party for Adolf Hitler?

With swastika symbol and "Happy Birthday, Adolf!" lettering?

And "Sieg Heil!" lettering and a figurine of Adolf delivering the Nazi salute?

No. But as long as the customer does nothing to disclose what the product is to be used for, the vendor should be required to sell it with no questions asked.

 

[Bronzeage]

Should a Jewish baker be required to provide a cake to a Neo-Nazi birthday party for Adolf Hitler?

With swastika symbol and "Happy Birthday, Adolf!" lettering?

And "Sieg Heil!" lettering and a figurine of Adolf delivering the Nazi salute?

No. But as long as the customer does nothing to disclose what the product is to be used for, the vendor should be required to sell it with no questions asked.

The catch here is when the Neo-Nazis discover they are in a Jewish owned bakery, they'll break all the windows and paint swastikas on the walls.

 

[Ford]

Should a Jewish baker be required to provide a cake to a Neo-Nazi birthday party for Adolf Hitler?

I know, right? Since what these lesbians are trying to impose upon bakers is exactly like what the Nazis did to the Jews!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is there something scary about this picture?

Could be the incident he is referring to, in which case the article you found - despite how conservatively lopsided the reporting is - did not support Cerberus' claim that "a couple of male homosexuals scammed a couple of bed-and-breakfast owners into bankruptcy"

It sounds like they went out of business because they were a lousy business and could not attract customers, which is why they couldn't pay their legal fees. If I walked into a B&B and saw the scene below, I'd be scared of leaving there alive.

Maybe part of that loss of business is due to decent people not wanting to give indecent people their business.

What's "indecent" about the business in the above picture? What is it about the scene that would cause you to be "scared"?

Basically what you're saying is that only pretty faces should be allowed to serve customers at the front desk. Replace that not-so-pretty face with a young sexy one, and your comment makes no sense.

 

[RavenSky]

It sounds like they went out of business because they were a lousy business and could not attract customers, which is why they couldn't pay their legal fees. If I walked into a B&B and saw the scene below, I'd be scared of leaving there alive.

Maybe part of that loss of business is due to decent people not wanting to give indecent people their business.

What's "indecent" about the business in the above picture? What is it about the scene that would cause you to be "scared"?

Basically what you're saying is that only pretty faces should be allowed to serve customers at the front desk. Replace that not-so-pretty face with a young sexy one, and your comment makes no sense.

It wasn't her face that he was talking about

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL makes the most sense.

Should a Jewish baker be required to provide a cake to a Neo-Nazi birthday party for Adolf Hitler?

I know, right? Since what these lesbians are trying to impose upon bakers is exactly like what the Nazis did to the Jews!

OK, another analogy:

How about a birthday cake for Mao Tse Tung? Mao murdered many more millions of humans than Hitler did. So, should an anti-communist baker be required to provide a birthday cake for a Mao Tse-Tung birthday party?

To be consistent, you must say this also may be refused. The baker is allowed to discriminate against any group that is celebrating a person who committed horrible crimes. Or, how about a birthday party for Alexander the Great, who is mostly honored today, but who, if he had lived in the 20th century, probably would have murdered 10 times as many as Mao?

How about Fidel Castro? who murdered a much smaller number?

How many humans had to be murdered before the murderer in question is not entitled to a birthday to be celebrated by someone who wants to buy a birthday cake?

How about a birthday cake for Christopher Columbus who murdered some native Americans? Aren't there still some Italian-Americans who are proud of the great "Discoverer of America"?

Should a native Hispaniolan descendant from survivors of the Holocaust in the West Indies be allowed to run a bakery and refuse service to the local Italians who want to celebrate Columbus with a birthday cake?

Does it depend on the RACE of the baker -- if he's of native Hispaniolan descent, he's entitled to refuse service, but not if he's Spanish or Anglo? If the latter, he has to provide the cake, with the lettering praising Columbus for discovering America?

How about some Iraqis wanting to commemorate Saddam Hussein? Or how about a birthday party for Junipero Serra, who is condemned for having been cruel to native Americans, and yet is being considered for sainthood? Should a native American baker be required to provide a birthday cake for some local Catholics wanting to commemorate the great missionary who imposed slavery onto his ancestors?

How about some Southerners who want to celebrate Robert E. Lee? or Jefferson Davis? May an African-American baker refuse service to them, whereas other bakers would be required to provide a birthday cake? It depends on your race whether you are required to provide service?

Would an atheist baker be required to provide a cake for a Billy Graham birthday party? With slogans about believing in Jesus and with prayers to God to stop the atheists from kicking God out of the schools? or with a nativity scene that the atheist baker finds offensive? You would force that baker to provide that birthday cake and put a nativity scene on it? little chocolate shepherds, etc.? and a shining candy STAR shining down from above?

So the state will dictate how "offensive" is too offensive and impose guidelines onto vendors dictating to them when they must violate their conscience, if the state says it's not extreme enough, and when they are free to act in accord with their belief? How can we trust the state, or the court, or the local police, to decide when vendors may and may not act according to their belief?

Isn't it better to leave it up to each vendor? So that when customers disclose what use will be made of the product, the vendor then is free to refuse service? And customers may buy the product without giving that information to the seller.