Do you think these guys in Oregon were wrong for doing what they did?
This happened about a month ago, or so.
Shortly after homosexual marriage got legalized, a homosexual couple, two men, were gonna get married..
Anyway they asked this one bakery to make their wedding cake, but the owners refused, saying that they could not do so, as if they did it would be as good as supporting homosexuality, and that went against their religious convictions.
So, the homosexual couple sued them.
Do you think the couple was right for suing them, or not?
I think they were wrong.
Sure homosexual marriage is legal now, but according to the 1st amendment, we also have the right to freedom of religion, and the right to free speech.
I personally applaud the bakery owners for standing by their principles, as it shows strength of character.
Plus, as business owners, they have the legal and moral right to do business with whomever they choose.
And by the same token, they also have the legal and moral right to refuse to do business with whomever they choose.
And out of respect, the homosexual couple should've just found someone else who was willing to do business with them.
I feel that what they did shows a HIGH level of disrespect for the rights of those shop owners.
And if the case goes to court, I hope the bakery owners win.
Comments
You're missing a huge part of the whole issue. The Bakery's owners leaked the gay couple's information which caused harassment and death threats, which I'm pretty sure made child protective services take away their adopted child.
Before the Civil Rights Act, people could and were denied interracial marriages on the basis of belief. So no, your religion does not give you the right to discriminate. It's like when you give a kid a toy. You let him have it as long as he shows he's responsible with it, then he starts bashing other kids over the head with it. Religious freedom does not give you the right to discriminate, because then only straight white couples will be able to get married in this country.
If I had a nickel for every time American Christians cried "RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION!!1!", I'd have enough to pay off my student loans and go on a nice vacation.
EDIT : Removed wrong information
There is no legal right to refuse service based on certain qualities like gender, race, etc.
Just looked it up, you were right. Thanks for the daily dose of knowledge.
Didn't know this. In that case, I hope they put the fuckers out of business.
I hadn't heard about this story, but from what you wrote, the couple were completely in the right, both legally and morally. No, it's not legal for a secular business to discriminate on religious grounds, nor should it be. If they were some kind of explicitly Christian bakery, maybe they would have a case, but I'm willing to bet that they do wedding cakes for atheist, Jewish, Muslim, etc weddings. But for some reason homosexuals are unacceptable.
Yes, the couple are disrespecting the shop owners. That's the whole point. The shop owners disrespected the couple, so they deserve disrespect back.
Also, I just googled the story and came up with this article. Is this the story you were talking about? If so, you may want to do thirty seconds of research before starting a thread next time. All I googled was oregon bakery, and this was the first link. Long story short, the case is over and the couple won.
Yeah, the Bakery owners got all pissed off and leaked the couple's information, which as you know, there are people which will threaten to kill and harm anyone associated with the couple. They knew this too, which is why they did it, as a kind of "Fuck you for suing us."
I guess it's not illegal to be an asshole, which was what the bakery owners' are. If I were the gay couple I'd walk away and do my business with a loving and non-bigoted company who will help make my wedding the special day it's supposed to be. The bakery has the right to refuse who they want, it's just their loss of business and their reputation they are ruining in the process.
And for what they did being a strength of character, I'd say it's a strength of weak character. I wouldn't applaud anyone for defending what they think if what they think is morally wrong. I'm not gonna go to the Westboro Baptist Church members and say "Hey, nice work standing by your beliefs!" just for the fact that they stand by them.
Edit: Apparently the bakery released personal information, including the lesbian couple's address. The couple received death threats because of the bakery posting their personal info, which put them in danger of losing their children. The bakery owners are not good people. I think even homophobics should recognize that leaking this information and putting the couple and their kids in danger is NOT cool.
Adding to that link about the couple winning the case, as GoldenPaladin wrote above, the bakery published the personal information of the gay couple, which led to harassment, which is why the bakery had to pay so much in damages.
This case went way beyond religious rights, and dealt with absolutely illegal action on the side of the bakery.
That depends. Do they have one of those signs displayed that says 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'? It's all about having signs displayed. I'm pro-signs on everything. 'Caution, step' painted along every curb everywhere, 'Sudden drop' all along the Grand Canyon, etc.
The bakery can do what it wants they are assholes and will lose business for it. But it's their shop
As Golden_Paladin said, I'm pretty sure they sued them for other things. Hypothetically, they have no right to sue him if it was just for refusing service, since it's a private business and a free market. The guy would get a bad name if he refused to sell cakes to gay people, though.
This whole issue seems so dumb. The bakery should stop their discrimination and just make the cake for them. It doesn't matter what religion you have or what your sexual orientation is. They're just normal customers.
No, thank you for being open to new knowledge.
But in all fairness, the couple are the one's who threw the first punch.
As I stated, the bakery owners, just like all business owners, have the right to choose whom they'll business with, and whom they will not do business with.
Just like an employer has the right to ask certain things of his employees, as he is the one paying their salary.
In any case, out of respect for the owners' faith, which is protected under the first amendment, they should have been gracious about the owners refusing to do business with them, and should have looked for someone who was willing to do business with them.
I personally interpret their attitude as: "You're not gonna do business with us?
Okay, we're gonna show you!
And once we make an example of you, others will know never to cross us again."
That's just my take away!
Some homosexuals, and I'm not saying all of them are like this, but some seem like they want to almost force their lifestyle on others.
And I base that on what I have seen, and what I have read.
For instance, many homosexuals preach tolerance and acceptance.
Thus you would think that many of them would follow that ideal, even when it is "difficult" to do so.
And yet, if anyone says anything that contradicts their lifestyle, even if that person says it in the most respectful way possible, many homosexuals resort to bigoted behavior, like calling the person "homophobic" and other such things.
Isn't that the very behavior homosexuals claim to be against?
And yet, I see this type of behavior from homosexuals over and over again.
Also, look at how many guys who go to prison, and get sexually molested by other prisoners.
These men, some who were homosexuals before being imprisoned, others who start practicing homosexuality while in prison, and some who are particularly violent, take what they want by force, which includes sexually assaulting other prisoners, particularly those that are young.
Is that not in fact forcing homosexual behavior on others?
I've have seen so many documentaries on prison life, and what happens to so many men who are incarcerated.
Also, in the Bible, there is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which I happen to believe as fact.
When two men came to visit Lot, (who was the Nephew of Abraham), and Lot's family, the every men of Sodom, "from young to old" according to the account, surrounded Lot's house and demanded that Lot hand over his guests, so that the mob might have sex with them.
Today, we would call that "gang-rape."
I don't give a fuck about the bible. You don't leak out someone's private information which could lead to their deaths or an adopted child's death. That's fucked up.
Yes, but you don't leak out personal information because someone sues you, that just makes your case worse and frankly makes the person who did it look like a childish dumbfuck.
If that's the whole story (and taking by the other people's post, it is not), then they were wrong to sue the bakery and they are wasting the justice system's time and resources on a lost cause, because as far as I know business owners do indeed have the right to refuse service to whoever they want (in the USA), but I might be wrong. Edit: TURNS OUT I WAS WRONG. That's actually great news. They have all the right to sue the bakery, who had no legal right to refuse service.
I mean, as a lawyer (not in the USA, so I'm not sure of how your laws work), I also reserve myself the "right" to refuse to defend bigots in court (lawyers here have the right to refuse to take any cause, with no need to justification). My parents, who are business owners, had problems once with a misogynistic asshole that refused to talk to my mother and demanded to talk to my father because he apparently was too important to negotiate with a woman, and my father not only refused to sell to him but also forbid him to ever setting foot on their store again.
Refusing service alone is not a good reason for a lawsuit. But, as I said, taking by the other people's posts, this is not the whole story. And if what other people are saying is true, then hell yeah the couple was right to sue them.
Edit: In my country there is actually a law that tries to protect the costumer on that case, but it is a deep-rooted custom and I never saw a lawsuit regarding refusing of service.
Nope.
I should've also clarified that the bakery owners leaking the couple's personal info was wrong, no question about that.
But let's look at the facts leading up to the whole thing.
All they did was refuse to business with someone, which was their right, both legally and morally speaking.
While the couple on the other hand sued them, which was going to drag them through a bunch a legal proceedings, and was gonna cost the owners thousands of dollars - if not more.
As I stated before, the couple should've acted like adults, and went to someone who would have no problem with making them a wedding cake.
If the couple had just done that, the whole situation could've been avoided.
But instead, the couple's behavior was basically like that of a 5 year old who doesn't get his way, and in turn starts throwing an tantrum.
It's really not that much different than someone doing something, which might bother others, and thus the others call the cops.
The person in question is told by the police to stop, but refuses, and then starts screaming "police brutality" after resisting arrest.
Now I'm not saying there aren't bad policemen out there!
But, if you don't want the police to stomp on you, don't resist arrest.
The point is, again, if the person wasn't so hell-bent on doing what they want to do, that type of situation could've been avoided.
Or an even better example would be of a child that's told over and over not to touch a hot stove.
But the boy doesn't listen, and as a result gets burned, and now is in pain and is crying.
All that could've been avoided if the child had just accepted what he was told.
Honestly the shop owner acted like a 5 year old in my opinion. If you're not going to serve someone your business because of their sexuality then why the fuck are you even running a business? A businesses #1 priority is to make $$$, if something is getting in the way of that then you're not very good at doing business.
I think both sides overreacted, and at the same time I can empathize with both. I get that the bakery felt like they would be supporting something they don't believe in, but it's just a freaking cake and it's not like they'd be catering the wedding (correct me if I'm wrong here). On the other hand I completely understand if the couple was offended/hurt by it, but writing a negative review online would be enough imo (and could lead to disaster for the bakery, but there's less of a chance of that). Suing them was a bit extreme.
Leaking the couples information online was an awful thing to do however and they deserve to be driven out of business for that.
Not exactly. Here in the US, business owners can't refuse services to customers based on things they can't help, such as race, gender, disabilities, country of origin, etc. However, they do have the right to refuse services to customers if they are antagonizing employers and/or other customers, causing public disturbances, knocking down merchandise, or failing to follow proper conduct such as no shoes, no shirt, no service.
Once you open up a public store or business, you are legally obligated to serve the public. You can't just just flat out kick someone out of your store or refuse them service because your personal beliefs or religion conflict with your will to do business with them.
Edit: Sorry, the thread posted my reply to another post as a separated reply instead O.o
Thanks for letting me know. It needs to have a legal justification, then? That's actually very interesting. I just assumed it was their right because of all the plaques saying that they reserve themselves the right to refuse to serve that I saw on many businesses in the USA.
I can't see how someone can reserve themselves a right they don't have on the first place.
Edit: Also, how does it works? Do business owners need to have witnesses or some other kind of proof? Here, the burden of the proof on issues between businesses and costumers falls on the business, because the costumer is considered the weaker part of the negotiation.
It's petty. That's what it is. The store owners were exercising there religious rights and they owned the store, so they can cater whoever they want. The gay couple shouldn't have sued them. And I'm fine with LBGT rights, people just have to realize that not everybody is. Just because somebody doesn't like gays doesn't make them evil.
Edit: The store owners are actually shitty people for leaking info. And so is the gay couple that decided they'd sue. I hate both of them.
They leaked personal info? The shop owners are really shitty people. But so is the gay couple that sued them.
Yeah, the "We Reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign, is kind of a misnomer because that sign doesn't mean you can refuse someone because they're female, Black, Asian, blind, Muslim, etc. They all fall under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I will read it, thanks for the info!
I understand that feeling like someone doesn't approve of who you are is awful, but suing the owners is taking it way too far.
As for the "freedom of religion" debate, I'm conflicted. One one hand, you could argue that freedoms end at affected others, but some freedoms DO affect others regardless of what you do, and are accepted by most. On the other hand, it's not like finding someone to bake a cake for a gay couple is difficult. It's one of those things that kinda suck, but you just take in your stride and move on.
I gotta side with the bakery owners on this one. The same laws apply to everyone, so I can tolerate it.
Like GoldenPaladin said, you're missing a huge chunk of the story. The bakers leaked private info regarding the gay couple which led to them being threaten and harassed by people. Surely you must think this was really fucked up for the bakers to do on their end.
Was this mentioned in the thread? I'll admit, I wanted to write my opinion before my phone battery died, so I must have missed it. But if they did leak private information, then that's immature and no less disrespectful than the gay couple suing them. Dickhead move by both.
I mean I'd say the couple was also in the wrong for suing them, if they leaked the info after they sued them. But if the couple sued them only after the info was leaked, because of that, then I see no fault in the couple.
Freedom of religion, yes. Basing our society around religion two thousand years later, bullshit. This society must learn to decentralize religion.
If people have certain views on minorities solely based on their religion, then remove them from important positions ASAP, because it clearly means they don't have their priorities straight.
Also, as evident here, religion always leads to problems. Always, its bound to, its definition should be 'trouble-maker'.
I think the couple might have overreacted a bit, but after reading that the store owners leaked their personal information, I think they are completley in the right, and the store owners should be sued again for that.
They actually refused them because of their sexuality, holy shit. I'm in tears right now, tears of laughing. I thought Christianity or religion in general was about peace and love, but I guess 'Love your next of kin' only applies if your next of kin is a white, straight, christian male (I'm using Christianity as an example, I know other religions are like this aswell). Also, the bible is no viable source, anyone who starts qouting the bible in any argument has already lost it (pun may be intended).
So no. The store owners and the couple both acted wrong, but the store owners were much worse and full of hatred where, if you go by their religion, there should have been love and understanding. I think all religious people who act like this are hypocrites, if you're gonna believe in 'god' and the 'holy' bible, then at least actually follow the rules and don't just use them to cover up your hatred and racism.
But that argument tho
'Can we has a cake?'
'No, you faggots!'
'OMG, sue them!'
'Ok, here they live, get them boys!'
smh
Oh, the Bakery's owner leaked the gay couple's personal information but he refused to make the cake cause ''the bible is against homosexuality''?
It's funny and sort of hypocritical. I thought the bible said to love each other, no matter your gender/beliefs/race, etc. But I don't see any love there. It's so easy to use the bible as an argument when it's convenient. What about following everything that is written on it? I don't know if it's against Oregon's laws to refuse service, but if I were the couple I'd have just walked away, I wouldn't want to get a cake from people like this.
Honestly, I can't understand. You're going to hell if you make a fucking cake for a gay couple, but if you cause them to be harassed -when the bible clearly says to show love to everyone - then you're following ''the Lord's words''? Talk about hypocrisy.
It's especially funny because Jesus never mentioned gays once. You have to go to three verses from Paul's letters (one of which is just a vague condemnation against effeminate men, a second which was probably not actually written by Paul, and a third whose meaning is under dispute), or the really archaic parts of the Old Testament (right around where they talked about how to treat your slaves, not to wear clothes of mixed fibers: ie 99% of modern clothing, etc). So they've decided to focus so much of their public efforts on an issue that was never addressed by Jesus, and has questionable justification elsewhere in the Bible.
The 'right to free speech' is overridden by many laws, including the law which says you can't refuse service to someone for something they can't control.
If a black person was refused service because they were black, would you praise the people who refused as having strength of conviction?
That sign only works for people who are causing problems. You can't deny service to people because of who they are in the United States since the civil rights act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce. The federal commission ruled that the civil rights act covers sexual orientation discrimination as well, as it's included under "sex-based discrimination".
Not to mention the bakery doesn't have the right to leak the personal information of the couple. The bakery was clearly in the wrong here.
I think that that might be what creates a lot of these issues. A lot of people still somehow believe that sexuality is a choice despite tons of evidence to the contrary, so even if they knew that law and wouldn't do it if it was illegal, they do believe that it's perfectly legal. It doesn't give them an excuse for refusing service of course, but I thought it'd be interesting to point out.