Judge rules family should be destroyed for refusing to bake a cake


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The state religion rules! A Oregon administrative law judge has recommended that a family should be fined $135,000 because the parents, who once ran a now shuttered baking business, refused to participate in a homosexual wedding by baking its cake.

Why did the Oregon judge stop there? The crime, of daring to disagree with the homosexual agenda, is so egregious that it seems to merit imprisonment. I think Oregon should maybe even consider concentration camps for these bigoted religious wackos who have the audacity to believe something different than the official state religion of liberalism. And how dare they think they have the right to feed and clothe their own children? We must take those children away immediately and put them in education camps so they can be raised properly!

Share

24 comments

  • Patrick Ritchie

    Is your argument that the government has no right to stop businesses and individuals from discriminating against each other?

    And to flip the text of the law (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403) used in this case around. No matter if that discrimination is “on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older”

  • The bakery was not discriminating against individuals. It was refusing to participate in the same-sex wedding, a wholly different thing. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that bakeries provide ordinary generic cakes for anyone who enters the store. Forcing them to bake a cake that specifically celebrates a ceremony or behavior that goes against their religious beliefs however is wrong. Would you force a kosher deli to serve pork because you wanted to buy it at that particular store, when you could simply go somewhere else? Under the oppressive rules now being touted by the left for the homosexual movement, this is exactly what is being demanded.

    This distinction is very important. Unfortunately, too many Americans can no longer see it, and are willing to look the other way as the homosexual activist community increasingly marshals the force of law to make it impossible for anyone to disagree with them.

  • David M. Cook

    Here in Southern Oregon and Northern California we’re hoping to make a new state, one free of the urban leftism that’s currently sweeping our rights away. 10 out of 36 counties in Oregon make law for the entire state, just as the major cities in California make law for the rest of the state.

    Support the new State of Jefferson!

  • pzatchok

    You might get someplace with that if you could get together with LaRaza. They could take the southern half of California and you guys the northern half.

  • Cotour

    Situations like this, over and above the core issue of who has individual rights, in what context they exist and in what order they are recognized, are a result I suspect from how the notice of rejection for service was given to the customer. Being prepared by having a pre thought out position / business plan and choosing honey over vinegar and attempting to reasonably accommodate in these situations goes a long way in minimizing the down side when dealing with the public.

    *Like it or not one individuals religious rights do not trump another individuals right to freely participate in public commerce.

    The administrative judges ruling for the business owner to pay the “offended” party for their vast list of emotional injuries (read Bull Sht) of $135,000.00 dollars is an abusive joke IMO designed to instill fear of government in the business community by the judge. And I am sure it will be struck down as being excessive, biased and an abuse of power (This again might depend on how offensive the business owner was in his rejection of the customer). I would hope that a portion of the $800 K that was given to the pizza shop would be dispersed to this baker in order to defer their legal costs if they are not being rendered pro bono.

  • Cotour

    ” Would you force a kosher deli to serve pork because you wanted to buy it at that particular store, when you could simply go somewhere else? Under the oppressive rules now being touted by the left for the homosexual movement, this is exactly what is being demanded.”

    This statement IMO is a false equivalency and a self serving narrative. Parity in services provided is what the goal is not the customer being able to force business owners to do or carry what that particular customer demands that they do or carry.

    Customers do not come into a business and do not demand anything other than parity with all others that come into the business. A business owner attempts to sense what the market “demands” or desires and attempts to fulfill those “demands” and or desires in order to make a profit / do business. If you tend to not be concerned with your customers wants and needs you are not in business for long.

    The gray area here?

    Does an individual who has religious rights who conducts business in an open to the public context get to trump the rights of another individual to freely participate in commerce?

    The answer IMO is, not exactly. Both party’s must be able to be reasonable in their desires to be respected.

    In addition I am happy to see that you Robert have modified your position a bit regarding how absolute either sides rights are concerned.

    ” It is perfectly reasonable to demand that bakeries provide ordinary generic cakes for anyone who enters the store.”

    When the insanity settles down I suspect that reason and respect will prevail in time, society is in the process of change and change does come always come without disruption to long held stereotypical models.

  • Edward

    > This statement IMO is a false equivalency and a self serving narrative.

    Where is the false equivalency? In the case of the deli, which serves meat, the customer is requesting a meat that the deli does not serve due to religious reasons. In the case of the bakery, the customer is requesting a cake that the bakery does not serve due to religious reasons.

    Or do you consider this comparing cakes to meats? (Get it? Apples to oranges?)

    > Customers do not come into a business and do not demand anything other than parity with all others that come into the business.

    Except that these customers did. There would be no problem if there were no difference. If there were no difference, then we couldn’t distinguish between the two. It is as though the couple went to an apple vendor and insisted on buying oranges. The vendor does not carry oranges, only apples.

    > If you tend to not be concerned with your customers wants and needs you are not in business for long.

    That is the problem for the shopkeeper, not the government. That is what a free society is all about. In a free society, the shopkeeper is free to fail.

    This is the difference between liberty and tyranny. In a tyranny, the government can tell the shopkeeper how he must run his business and can tell the customer that he must purchase certain products (e.g. health insurance).

    > Does an individual who has religious rights who conducts business in an open to the public context get to trump the rights of another individual to freely participate in commerce?

    The customer’s rights were not trumped. The customer may freely go to another shop (for any reason, including religious reasons), a shop that may not be destined for failure. There is no gray area here at all. The government is allowing the customer to trample the shopkeeper’s rights, but the shopkeeper has not violated anyone else’s rights in the least little bit.

    There is no right to convenience, otherwise I could demand a 7-11 shop be installed in my refrigerator for my own convenience. To not do so would violate my right to convenience.

    > Both party’s must be able to be reasonable in their desires to be respected.

    In this case, the customer AND the government have refused to respect the shopkeeper, but the shopkeeper was very respectful of the customer. I am continually amazed at how you miss this fact, as it keeps appearing in the articles presented on this blog site.

    > society is in the process of change and change does come always come without disruption to long held stereotypical models.

    I agree, it is in the process of change. That change is in a direction away from freedom, and the charge for change is being led by people like you, Cotour, who disagree with the rights of a shopkeeper (or anyone else, for that matter) to practice their religious beliefs outside of their homes.

    The old stereotypical model of religion is being replaced by one where a person is as able to forsake his religion outside of his house just as a person is able to forsake his gender identity outside his house. Oops. The latter isn’t true, of course, but you insist upon the former.

    You seem to have confused “equal treatment under the law” for “treated equally.” In the former, the laws are enforced equally, in the latter, the laws are bent so that everyone feels good about themselves (unless they are of an unprotected group, such as religious people, then they are trampled upon by the protected groups and the government).

    If there were “equal treatment under the law,” then the bakery that refused to put religious verses on a couple of cakes would likewise have been fined, drummed out of business, and that owner’s family hunted down and destroyed, too. (Or this baker and family would have been left alone, as the anti-religion baker was.)

  • Cotour

    They “demand” parity not pork, nothing more nothing less. Parity as in respect, a non tangible, pork is a tangible. Its a false equivalency that serves to promote a confusion in order to substantiate a point.

    “Does an individual who has religious rights who conducts business in an open to the public context get to trump the rights of another individual to freely participate in commerce?

    The answer IMO is, not exactly. Both party’s must be able to be reasonable in their desires to be respected.”

    When I say “not exactly” I recognize that there are special circumstances in certain businesses where an accommodation to write something or be present at an event may truly be offensive and be a deal breaker and these circumstances will have to be worked out, preferably by the individuals and not by a court, vindictive or other wise.

    I again point out that the rights we all possess are not absolute and they can be modified depending on the situations that a person creates for themselves where their rights intersect with another’s rights. Whether they (or you) realize it or not.

  • Keith

    To some that sounds like a ploy to get two more democratic senators.

  • Edward

    > Parity as in respect

    As I said, the shopkeepers showed respect, but the customers and the government did not. No parity, there. Please notice that these customers are part of the “Mongol Hordes,” not the respectable public.
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/they-have-become-the-mongol-hordes/

    > Both party’s must be able to be reasonable in their desires to be respected.

    So why are you taking the side of the disrespectful Mongol Hordes?

    > I recognize that there are special circumstances in certain businesses where an accommodation to write something or be present at an event may truly be offensive and be a deal breaker and these circumstances will have to be worked out, preferably by the individuals and not by a court, vindictive or other wise.

    But what about this case, in which the Mongol Hordes are demanding not just an offensive action but a participation that actually violates the religious rights of the shopkeeper? Yet you take the side which has invoked the court rather than working out the problem reasonably and respectfully.

    > I again point out that the rights we all possess are not absolute

    Indeed. You treat the most precious rights that are protected by the First Amendment as though it is beneath the non-right of the customer’s mere convenience. Talk about not being absolute, in your argument these rights are not only modified in favor of non-rights, they do not even exist.

    Your priorities are badly messed up. (But I am not being judgmental.)

  • Edward

    I have to apologize for messing up one of my lines, a couple of entries ago. Please consider this as a correction:

    The twice-used phrase “equal treatment under the law” should read: “equal protection under the law.”

  • Cotour

    I understand the “hoards” strategy, I never said that I liked or condoned it. I understand it and it is effective. Why is it effective? Because they can demonstrate a reasonable logic related to it.

    Q: “But what about this case, in which the Mongol Hordes are demanding not just an offensive action but a participation that actually violates the religious rights of the shopkeeper? Yet you take the side which has invoked the court rather than working out the problem reasonably and respectfully.”

    A: ” I recognize that there are special circumstances in certain businesses where an accommodation to write something or be present at an event may truly be offensive and be a deal breaker and these circumstances will have to be worked out, preferably by the individuals and not by a court, vindictive or other wise.”

  • Cotour

    The hoard enforces their will and corrects one of their own who dared to attempt to discuss the issues of the day with the “enemy” :

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/gay-hotelier-who-hosted-ted-cruz-i-made-a-terrible-mistake/

    You must admire their ability to operate as a single entity, much like the Borg.

  • PeterF

    What a putz

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote:
    “Because they can demonstrate a reasonable logic related to it.”

    I’m calling BS. There is no reasonableness or logic to this. It is purely emotional. It is the emotion that the customer’s convenience should trump the shopkeeper’s religious rights, and the customers were not reasonable, by your own definition: they did not take action to work out the circumstances.

    The best logic that you have been able to come up with is that the shopkeeper should be eager to please the customer. There is no evidence that this — or any of the other shopkeepers — are not willing to please their customers. The evidence is exactly the opposite. All the shopkeepers (except for the one who wouldn’t put religious scripture on a couple of cakes) were perfectly willing to serve their customers, but they were unwilling to participate (“participate” being the key word in this entire topic) in activities that violated their faith.

    Shopkeepers should not be required or forced to please all their customers all the time. That is an impossibility, as you have previously pointed out by sharing your own experiences. Shopkeepers must have the freedom to allow certain customers to leave unsatisfied. It is for the free market to decide whether they are unable or unwilling to satisfy enough customers to remain in business.

    This is what freedom means.

    The logic is that the First Amendment’s guaranteed protection of freedom of religion is more important than the convenience of the customer. The shopkeepers should be allowed, free of government interference, to operate their businesses as they see fit and in compliance with their religion. For the government to insist otherwise is unconstitutional; does the opposite of protecting their rights; is not logical, according to the supreme law of the land (the US Constitution); and is a tyrannical form of governance.

    It seems that you have fallen for the mainstream media’s methods of distorting, mocking, insulting, and excluding their conservative opposition. Your arguments have relied heavily on distorted facts.

    To respond to your silly answer: your answer failed to address the issue of violated rights. It addresses a case in which there is offense, which is not part of this case. No one has been offended, but the shopkeeper’s rights have been violated by the very government that is charged with protecting those rights.

  • Edward

    It is all about the shut-up-ery:
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/what-ever-you-do-dont-shut-up

    If someone, even someone who is perceived as being in their camp, is out of line, that person must be brought back to toeing the line or be destroyed.

    It is a culture of thuggery.

  • Cotour

    Recognize that it is effective and then you are half way to counter acting it. Refuse to recognize their strength and all you will have are complaints and no solutions.

  • Cotour

    A question for Edward: Do you consider gay people individuals?

  • Cotour

    The gray area better defined by a court:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/28/christian-t-shirt-company-doesnt-have-to-print-gay-pride-festival-shirts-court-says/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z4

    Is it reasonable to expect a business who custom prints or writes on what they produce for their customers to have to print or write what ever it is that the customer demands?

    In cases like this I say no, if the management finds the text offensive or vial as defined by them alone they should have the reasonable option to deny their services. The government can not force or coerce them to custom produce what they find against their better judgement or is offensive to them. One mans First Amendment Rights do not negate another mans right to refuse to produce them. In the context of this kind of business.

    I am making a distinction here in the gray area Edward:

    In the gray area you do not say to a person ” I will not serve you because you are gay / black / white / Jewish etc.” .

    * Which IMO is how these cases seem to be handled by the “offender” and characterized by the “offended”. *

    Your refusal should not be, or be able to be characterized as being based in discriminating against THEIR beliefs, gender, color or orientation (hopefully) it is based in your beliefs or First Amendment rights. Is this a bit of a nuanced dance here? Yes, but this is the gray area.

    In this gray area where custom products are produced you must be reasonable and consistent in how you accept or refuse what is produced and be prepared to defend yourself and to what degree if things move past the point where individuals can not resolve their differences reasonably. And there may well be people who intend to push these issues and circumstances to the max as part of an agenda to make their point and to adjust society’s parameters to their ends by these means.

    Its best to be prepared in the gray area.

  • You are beginning to twist yourself into a pretzel to maintain your position. Here are the essentials of the two cases (the first the actual circumstances, the second a hypothetical based on the court case):

    1. A Christian baker is ordered by a customer to bake a cake with words on it celebrating same-sex marriage.
    2. A Christian printer is ordered by a customer to print a leaflet with words on it celebrating same-sex marriage.

    In the first case you think it proper to order the Christian to do it, or else face ruin, even prison. In the second case you think it right and proper to allow the Christian to say no.

    Yet there really is no distinction between the two. In both cases the Christians are very clear that they are not discriminating against the person. Instead, they disagree with the behavior and do not wish to participate in it.

    This court case bodes well for these Christian bakers. If one fights on and gets to the Supreme Court, this ruling suggests they will win.

  • Cotour

    This is the gray area.

    “In the gray area you do not say to a person ” I will not serve you because you are gay / black / white / Jewish etc.” .

    * Which IMO is how these cases seem to be handled by the “offender” and characterized by the “offended”. *”

    In addition ” A Christian baker is ordered by a customer ” and ” A Christian printer is ordered by a customer “. A customer does not first enter a business and order the owner to do anything, that is not what these cases are set off by. There is no twisting going on I am only making a distinction where a distinction must be made. These events do not happen in a vacuum.

    Q: You see no “gray” area here, everything is black and white to you?

    On a non related subject, I listened to Coast this morning, I do not know how you retain all of that very specific information about such a vast period of time and number of programs that the space industry has exists within.

    I think Coast is one of the best radio show’s going. Its got the way, way out and its got everything else and it has destroyed my sleep pattern.

  • >This is the gray area. “In the gray area you do not say to a person ” I will not serve you because you are gay / black / white / Jewish etc.” .

    You are creating a strawman argument that is beside the point. Not one of the bakers or pizza shop owners or florists have ever said they would not serve a gay person, just because they are gay. In fact, all of them have provided services to gay customers in the past.

    What they have said is that they would not provide a cake or cater or provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding, because to do so would mean they are participating in and appearing to endorse that ceremony, something that is considered a sin in their faith.

    I repeat: All of these Christian businesses have served gays in the past. They have never discriminated against a person, only against a behavior. That you, at this late date in this discussion, don’t seem to be aware of this basic component of the situation is very puzzling.

  • Edward

    Grow up.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote:
    “The gray area better defined by a court:”

    There is no gray area, here. For government to force someone to violate their religion, rather than protect their freedom to practice their religion, is wrong. That is black and white (or parchment and brown) in the Constitution.

    Government is now, more and more, requiring religious organizations and religious people to assist in and to enable behaviors that these people and organizations find sinful. It is the moral equivalent of aiding and abetting a felony. No gray area there, either.

    You may believe that whether the behavior is wrong is a gray area, but we are not discussing the rightness of the behavior; we are discussing the rights to not participate in the behavior. For government to coerce someone to participate is just as tyrannical as it is for government to determine how its subjects are to spend their money. (What other tyranny in all of history has, as the US now does, required that its people buy a specific good or service? This is an open question for anyone reading this post, it is not rhetorical, as I really *do* want to know.)

    The Pilgrims and many, many others came to America to escape such tyranny, yet here you are endorsing and enabling the very same tyranny. America was once the place to go to escape tyranny and to find freedom, religious freedoms or other freedoms. That is being taken from us, and thus from the peoples of the world, as once they get here they will find the freedoms to have been only rumor. Apparently, this process is too subtle for you to recognize it. It is like the proverbial boiling of the frog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *