# Make them sell cake...



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

Well, a store that refused to sell cakes to a gay couple due to religious objections...closed their store...so the next step, of course, is to send in federal agents...arrest them...and force them to make the cake...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...o_make_gay_wedding_cake_closes_its_store.html


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Well, a store that refused to sell cakes to a gay couple due to religious objections...closed their store...so the next step, of course, is to send in federal agents...arrest them...and force them to make the cake...
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...o_make_gay_wedding_cake_closes_its_store.html


A distinction was made in the article that I don't understand.  





> If a gay couple came into the store and wanted to buy some donuts or bread, and were refused service, that is what the law was supposed to prevent. But that's not the case here and this unilateral expansion of the definition of the law infringes on the religious freedom of the owner.




So, was the gay couple asking for them to do the cake for free?  What makes this other than refusing to do business with them based upon their sexual orientation, which is specifically protected by law?  

How do you think this would play out if the bakery refused to serve them because they were christian?  Do you think it would be handled differently?  The same?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

They took a stand and they lost business for it and had to close down.  That's they way the market works.


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

> That's they way the market works.



Almost...they were going to be pursued by the government...it wasn't a matter of people not going to their business because of their stand on gay marriage.  Not the same thing as the free market.




> Since  2007, Oregonians have filed 11 complaints of unlawful  discrimination  in public places under the 2007 equality law. BOLI found  no substantial  evidence in five of those complaints but parties  negotiated  settlements in three other cases
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Left to the free market I think this business might still be open...


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

> " 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now. "



Err....I guess this has to be rewritten for 2013...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it...however...if you decide not to bake a cake for someone you do not believe in...then I will sic the government on you and try to destroy everything you have worked for...."

There...that sounds about right...


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> They took a stand and they lost business for it and had to close down.  That's they way the market works.



This part -- I agree with.  I'm not exactly keen on the idea that they're being prosecuted for it.  Let the market settle it...

Regarding the difference between refusing a specific contract and refusing to serve any class of people...  It's a fine distinction, but there's some validity to it.  The bakery refused to provide a cake for a celebration that went against their principles.  They would be getting nothing but support and kudos had the cake been for a KKK cross burning or Neo-Nazi rally.  There probably wouldn't have been much fuss if they refused a contract to bake a cake for some celebration at a pro-choice organization's office.  But if a Klan member or a Neo-Nazi or a member of that pro-choice organization walked in and wanted to buy a cupcake -- the store would probably sell it to them.  

Which kind of leads to my other issue...  The law in question criminalizes an action that should be damn impossible to figure out.  Outside of a gay couple walking in and making out on the counter -- how the hell is a business supposed to tell?  But -- deny a customer who happens to be gay service for any reason (like, say, they're drunk off their butt and causing a major disruption and they just want them to leave...), and that customer can allege discrimination.  How do you disprove it?


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2013)

Hey Bill.  Any interest in answering the questions I posed?  I'm curious what your thoughts are.  The article distinguished between people buying a donut out of the shop or ordering a cake to be made for a wedding.  The former, he said, was what the law was intended to protect.  I'm not clear what the difference is.  Do you have any thoughts?

And I'm very curious what you think would be different if the customers were Christian and refused service.  Do you think that the Oregon BL&I would have handled it differently?  Do you think this is something new and unique to gay couples or just a fundamental problem with the protected bases and anti-discrimination laws?

I guess what I'm really interested in knowing is whether we're talking about gays, or if the real issue here are our country's discrimination laws on the whole.  What do you think?


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

the answer is easy.  If the group was refused because they were Christians...nothing would have happened and they would still be open.

Christians would simply go somewhere else.

I think that a business should be able to serve or not serve anyone they want based on whatever reason they want, without fear of government lawsuits.  

I think the law is wrong.

Do you think that if you need a plumber, and get several quotes that you should have to prove that you didn't discriminate against the plumbers you didn't hire based on their race, sexual orientation, religion or any other number of characteristics you could use to choose your plumber?  After all, if you choose not to hire a gay plumber to work in your house...should he be able to sue you?

And I do have things to do besides post.


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

I think when they requested two brides on the cake or two grooms...that might be a clue that they were a different type of client...


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Left to the free market I think this business might still be open...



...along with whites-only restaurants in Alabama. You give women the right to vote and things just go all to hell.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> the answer is easy.  If the group was refused because they were Christians...nothing would have happened and they would still be open.
> 
> Christians would simply go somewhere else.



This logic works well if you're a relatively well-off member of the majority, like Christians who buy specially-made cakes, but not so well if you're a less well-off member of a minority. A boycott by those having gay weddings would be less effective, and in many small towns a cake store serving only the gay community couldn't prosper to give a market alternative.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 3, 2013)

We've discussed almost the same thing before, if this isn't one we have in fact discussed before.  Everyone knows my beliefs on any type of same sex relationship.  Also my religious beliefs.  But I live in the United States, where we are supposed to believe in law.  I haven't read the Oregon law.  So I can't comment on specifics.

However, this doesn't appear to be a legally defensable as a religious issue.  When you run a public business, most US jurisdictions no longer allow a business to discriminate on certain accepted and legally codified classes.  That includes based on race, religion, and among others, sexual orientation.  You can't sit back and criticize the Oregon government for sueing them, or levying fines, it that is what is allowed/required by law.

It you can refuse business to gay people, then what prevents you from denying service to blacks, or catholics, or protestants, because they are black, catholic, or protestant?  The owners must know the law.  If they choose to violate the law, they can't complain when they are hauled before the law.  They either agree to comply, accept the consequences, including going out of business, or use this as an opportunity to fight that law.

As much as I would like to support business people having a right to choose who their clients will be, I don't like how that was used in the past, and don't want to return there.


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> the answer is easy.  If the group was refused because they were Christians...nothing would have happened and they would still be open.


Do you really think this is true?  No sarcasm here.  I'm trying to figure out if you genuinely believe that the law would not be enforced for other protected bases.





> Christians would simply go somewhere else.


Now, this I'm not sure about.  We've seen ample evidence over the years that Christians are as likely as any protected base to cry foul when discriminated against.  



> I think that a business should be able to serve or not serve anyone they want based on whatever reason they want, without fear of government lawsuits.
> 
> I think the law is wrong.


Well, this is more to the point.  So, to be clear, you're saying that you are against any civil rights legislation?  In other words, are you suggesting that laws protecting Christians should be stricken, and that there should be no such thing as a base protected against discrimination?  Race, religion, gender, etc?


> Do you think that if you need a plumber, and get several quotes that you should have to prove that you didn't discriminate against the plumbers you didn't hire based on their race, sexual orientation, religion or any other number of characteristics you could use to choose your plumber?  After all, if you choose not to hire a gay plumber to work in your house...should he be able to sue you?


As a consumer, I can discriminate however I choose.  The plumbers, however, can't discriminate against a protected base.  So, I agree with you that a consumer should be able to get several quotes and choose whichever plumber I want.  As a plumber, though, the law is pretty clear.





> And I do have things to do besides post.


Dang, that's a little snippy, bill.  I only asked because you had posted twice.  I don't know why you're getting snarky.  I'm one of the only guys left on the board who is interested in trying to understand your perspective.


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

> Do you really think this is true? No sarcasm here.



Yes, I do.  The enthusiasm to enforce the law to protect christian groups or tea party groups, as we have seen, the I.R.S. scandal in particular, would not be the same.



> Now, this I'm not sure about.



Well, look at Gay day at Disney...Christians boycott it all the time and the result...they just have to go on gay day or plan their vacation for another day of the year...



> In other words, are you suggesting that laws protecting Christians should be stricken, and that there should be no such thing as a base protected against discrimination? Race, religion, gender, etc?



For the private sector, yes.  For the government, absolutely not.  The government can't discriminate against any citizen for any reason.  



> as a consumer, I can discriminate however I choose.



Why can you discriminate as a home owner?  Do you think their should be a law protecting your freedom to choose the workmen of your choice based on whatever criteria you set up for yourself?



> Any interest in answering the questions I posed?



Actually, that was sort of snippy, my response to that was just a fact.  

Here is a question for all who think the law is right.  Steve, you are a martial arts instructor...now a bunch of German Socialists, neo-nazis want to book you to do a seminar for their group.  For the sake of this let's say you do do seminars (in case you don't) and they are able to pay your fees and you have the date they want available...should you as a private business owner be able to say, no, I don't believe in what you believe in so I will not support you by giving you my service?  Or should the government be able to come in and start a discrimination investigation into wether or not you are discriminating against this group...

Next, neo-nazis go to a Jewish bakery and request a cake for their rally, it will have two large swastikas and a picture of hitler on the cake...should they be allowed to refuse to make that cake for that group...or should the government start an investigation for a discrimination law suit?


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2013)

In a phone so can't reply adequately but is nazism a religion?  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

I think you should be allowed to discriminate against anyone you want for any reason.  But just like here you need to be prepared for the results of your choice. These guys made a choice and the people spoke they lost business.  
I think the govt going after them opens a slippery slope.  Say I just don't have time to make their cake and they file discrimination claim.  Now I need to spend my time and money defending a false accusation.


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

Ballen, you keep saying "the people," spoke...I don't think that was the case...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ng-Wedding-Cake-for-lesbians-Closes-Its-Doors



> An Oregon bakery that was threatened by the state&#8217;s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) with an investigation for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple closed its store onAugust 31, choosing instead to sell its products from home.



At this point it looks like they closed up their storefront to avoid an investigation that if it went south on them could cost them 450,000 dollars.  Even if they ended up settling or winning, it would cost them a fortune to defend themselves against a State with limitless resources...



> Since 2007, there have been 11 complaints of unlawful discrimination in public places in Oregon due to the 2007 equality law. Five of those complaints failed but three
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They weren't closed by the market and customers going elsewhere, they were closed down by the fear of losing a government lawsuit...which isn't the market in action...


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Ballen, you keep saying "the people," spoke...I don't think that was the case...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ng-Wedding-Cake-for-lesbians-Closes-Its-Doors
> 
> ...


I read another article where they interviewed the owners and the said lack of business and death threats were the main reason they closed their store. I'll try to find it I read it yesterday.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

The part I don't get is the bakery clearly has on their website they believe marriage is between a man and woman and have bible verses so why did this gay couple want to give them any of their money in the first place?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Here is a question for all who think the law is right.  Steve, you are a martial arts instructor...now a bunch of German Socialists, neo-nazis want to book you to do a seminar for their group.  For the sake of this let's say you do do seminars (in case you don't) and they are able to pay your fees and you have the date they want available...should you as a private business owner be able to say, no, I don't believe in what you believe in so I will not support you by giving you my service?  Or should the government be able to come in and start a discrimination investigation into wether or not you are discriminating against this group...
> 
> Next, neo-nazis go to a Jewish bakery and request a cake for their rally, it will have two large swastikas and a picture of hitler on the cake...should they be allowed to refuse to make that cake for that group...or should the government start an investigation for a discrimination law suit?



Not all forms of discrimination are banned. You could discriminate against many groups of people but some forms have been outlawed. We choose to live in a civil society.


----------



## granfire (Sep 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The part I don't get is the bakery clearly has on their website they believe marriage is between a man and woman and have bible verses so why did this gay couple want to give them any of their money in the first place?



maybe they just wanted cup cakes and walked in?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I think the govt going after them opens a slippery slope.  Say I just don't have time to make their cake and they file discrimination claim.  Now I need to spend my time and money defending a false accusation.



This is the downside of a lot of these laws--like not firing a bad employee b/c he/she would be well set up to claim discrimination and it'd be a costly lawsuit even if you won.


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

> The part I don't get is the bakery clearly has on their website they believe marriage is between a man and woman and have bible verses so why did this gay couple want to give them any of their money in the first place?



They didn't, they wanted to make an example of them...


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

As to making an example of them...

The bakery made cakes for this couple before, they just refused to do a wedding cake on religious grounds...here is a more detailed look at the case...

There is a video...

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/03/oregon-bakery-closes-doors-after-state-investigates-over-refusal-to-cater-same-sex-wedding/



> Second, note what the guy says in the clip about how they&#8217;ve made cakes for this couple before. They don&#8217;t refuse to serve gay customers, they refuse to serve gay weddings specifically. The same is true, I assume, of the New Mexico photographer. That&#8217;s a potential line of attack for social-conservative pols as they start to push back against cases like this &#8212; this isn&#8217;t a categorical refusal to serve a minority group, it&#8217;s a religious objection to serving at one particular type of event in which that group participates. That may not help them legally but it&#8217;ll help in the court of public opinion, where the majority in support of religious exemptions in situations like this is already overwhelming. I&#8217;d be surprised if we don&#8217;t start seeing legislative hearings about it, whether in Congress or at the state level, sometime next year.





> The latter filed a complaint with the state under the relevant antidiscrimination law and an investigation, which could have taken up to a year, was launched. The bakers, having already been targeted for a boycott by opponents and likely fearing the expense and aggravation of a long court battle themselves, decided to close the shop and move operations into their home, which presumably renders the business &#8220;distinctly private&#8221; and therefore beyond the reach of the state&#8217;s public accommodations law. (Does it?)





> Watch the extended interview with them about what they&#8217;ve gone through, paying special attention to the bit in the middle about &#8220;mafia tactics&#8221; by some gay-rights supporters.


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

> We choose to live in a civil society.



Hmmmm...you won't make us a cake...then we will use the government to take your business from you...

Yeah, I guess that is a little more civilized...


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

granfire said:


> maybe they just wanted cup cakes and walked in?



No they wanted a wedding cake.


----------



## billc (Sep 3, 2013)

This is the interesting part...



> Second, note what the guy says in the clip about how they&#8217;ve made cakes for this couple before. They don&#8217;t refuse to serve gay customers, they refuse to serve gay weddings specifically.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Not all forms of discrimination are banned. You could discriminate against many groups of people but some forms have been outlawed. We choose to live in a civil society.



I understand that.  My view is I'd rather know who wants and deserves my money.  By forcing a business to serve someone like a minority you might be giving your money to someone that smiles to your face and hates you.  Id rater just know in advance.  That's just me I'd prefer to give my money to better people


----------



## granfire (Sep 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No they wanted a wedding cake.



Still...maybe they just walked into a bakery and asked for it....
Revolutionary concept: Walk-ins....

We got a place around the corner...I had not considerd checking them out via web. They make cakes, that should be enough, right?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

granfire said:


> Still...maybe they just walked into a bakery and asked for it....
> Revolutionary concept: Walk-ins....
> 
> We got a place around the corner...I had not considerd checking them out via web. They make cakes, that should be enough, right?


OK most people don't just walk into the first place they see to buy a wedding cake.  But I guess its possible.  Either way if they don't want my money then I def don't want to give it to them.


----------



## granfire (Sep 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> OK most people don't just walk into the first place they see to buy a wedding cake.  But I guess its possible.  Either way if they don't want my money then I def don't want to give it to them.



Well, it might have been like with our cake needs 'Hey, who made your cake?' 'Soandso down the street' 'Oh cool, let's go there' 

But most certainly, if they are too rich to take my money, why force them to take it!


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

granfire said:


> Well, it might have been like with our cake needs 'Hey, who made your cake?' 'Soandso down the street' 'Oh cool, let's go there'
> 
> But most certainly, if they are too rich to take my money, why force them to take it!


I guess I'm different then I check out everything.  I Google damn near every place I go


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> Hmmmm...you won't make us a cake...then we will use the government to take your business from you...
> 
> Yeah, I guess that is a little more civilized...



That's actually pretty much the definition of civilized.  But what protected base would a nazi fall under?  Is that a recognized religion?  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2013)

billc said:


> This is the interesting part...



It's the gay part, not the wedding part that is relevant, since in Oregon they have chosen to include sexual orientation as a protected class.  Discriminating sometimes is still discrimination.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire (Sep 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess I'm different then I check out everything.  I Google damn near every place I go



I guess I am not that jaded after all....
Then again, I live in a small town...a lot of places have really crappy web pages - word of mouth IS the best way to find a good shop!


----------



## Tgace (Sep 3, 2013)

My wife works in the wedding industry....its a fairly common occurrence to have a man walk in and request to try on wedding dresses. They are typically allowed with specific instructions regarding underwear...nudity etc. Not a one has been known to actually return to buy a dress. Most people in the industry believe these to be attempts at discrimination lawsuits or at the least an attempt to "out" stores in the media.

If this bakery was ever explicit in its religious stance I don't doubt for a second that this couldn't have been a "hit" vs a legit customer.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> If this bakery was ever explicit in its religious stance I don't doubt for a second that this couldn't have been a "hit" vs a legit customer.



Could be. There are people who have made a career of ADA lawsuits. I'm no fan of entrapment but on the other hand not breaking the law is a good defense here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 3, 2013)

Discrimination laws are easily abused.  Eliminate them.  Let businesses serve or refuse to serve whomever they want.  Let those refused protest if they want. Let consumers boycott or boost whomever they want.   As a consumer, I don't want a business that doesn't want my business forced to do business with me.  They'd do a half-assed job or the least needed done to say they did it.  I can go elsewhere and get exceptional service.  You might have to go a bit further, but I'd rather drive an hour than patronize someone who has an issue.

My 2c.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 3, 2013)

granfire said:


> I guess I am not that jaded after all....
> Then again, I live in a small town...a lot of places have really crappy web pages - word of mouth IS the best way to find a good shop!


I don't know if its jaded or I just like to see.  If I wanted a wedding cake I'd want to see pictures of other cakes they did so I'd look online.  Our wedding cake was made by a family member so I didn't go to a bakery and even then we looked online to get ideas.


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Could be. There are people who have made a career of ADA lawsuits. I'm no fan of entrapment but on the other hand not breaking the law is a good defense here.



Yeah, in the same way 2nd amendment nuts try to entrap cops.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## crushing (Sep 4, 2013)

Steve said:


> Yeah, in the same way 2nd amendment nuts try to entrap cops.



"Am I being detained or am I free to leave?" isn't just for pro 2nd Amendment folks while taking video documentation.  Protesters (1st Amendment nuts) do it.  People challenging police state checkpoints (4th Amendment nuts) do it and I'm sure other civil rights nuts probably do it as a sort of checks and balances effort.


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2013)

crushing said:


> "Am I being detained or am I free to leave?" isn't just for pro 2nd Amendment folks while taking video documentation.  Protesters (1st Amendment nuts) do it.  People challenging police state checkpoints (4th Amendment nuts) do it and I'm sure other civil rights nuts probably do it as a sort of checks and balances effort.


Exactly.  There are always people out there trying to score for their team, and it sucks to be caught up in it.  I had in mind the specific video that tgace posted a while back where the police officer handled a 2nd amendment nut very well.  

Tying it back to this thread, the law is exactly that.  If a nut tries to provoke you into breaking the law, as the cop did in that video a while back, the best thing to do is to understand the law and avoid crossing the line.

In this situation, it's pretty clear that the couple who owned this bakery broke a law.  Simple as that, whether they were provoked or not.  

It seems like a few issues have come up.  First, based only on what has been shared in this thread, it appears to me that the Oregon DL&I is pursuing this case appropriately.  What I mean is that it seems like this is a pretty clear case of illegal discrimination based upon Oregon's law.

Second thing is the allegation that the Oregon DL&I wouldn't pursue a similar case if the roles were reversed.  If true, that's troubling to me.  Is there any evidence of this?  Are there other cases where the Oregon Dept of Labor and Industries ignored or failed to investigate allegations of discrimination by Christians?  I'm interested in this, because it seems to me that it's becoming very common for groups to play the victim card, and Christians seem to be doing it a lot.  

Third thing is whether we should have discrimination laws at all.  This is strictly a matter of opinion.  My personal opinion is that they exist for a reason, and I fully support them.  However, as with anything else, we should be vigilant for abuse.  As we've seen with 2nd amendment rights and everything else, there will always be nuts on the fringe trying to push an issue or provoke a confrontation in the hopes of taking a principled stand (however misguided).


----------

