Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay $135G in damages in gay wedding cake case

[justoh]

They aren't forced to sell cakes in the first place, nomind.

 

[NoStateofMind]

They aren't forced to sell cakes in the first place, nomind.

But that's not what the problem is, is it? It's that they chose NOT to serve a particular group of people.

 

[Cozarkian]

But that's not what the problem is, is it? It's that they chose NOT to serve a particular group of people.

You are forced to get a driver's license IF you want to drive, you are forced to pay social security tax IF you want to work for a private employer, and you are forced to refrain from discrimination IF you want to operate a business that is open to the public.

Those IFs are why this isn't slavery.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You are forced to get a driver's license IF you want to drive, you are forced to pay social security tax IF you want to work for a private employer, and you are forced to refrain from discrimination IF you want to operate a business that is open to the public.

Those IFs are why this isn't slavery.

IF you have to ask for permission to travel, IF your wealth is forcefully confiscated for whatever reason, and IF you are forced to serve those you wish not to because you don't have the freedom of association or contract in public then....

Those IFs are why it IS slavery.

 

[umbrella39]

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



maybe not?

Copied from my post #57

It's important to note they were not fined for the publishing of the home address and personal info as was circulating around the Net... They violated state law, the commissioner found, and that unlawful action caused real harm to their victims.

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the commissioner ruled. “The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

“The damages are outlined in the order and directly relate to the couple’s suffering as a result of the denial of service and unlawful discrimination,” Burr said. “No damages were awarded as a result of any media coverage.”

That should clear it up.

 

[umbrella39]

But that's not what the problem is, is it? It's that they chose NOT to serve a particular group of people.

The law:

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the commissioner ruled. “The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

Don't like the laws, don't set up shop offering yourself up to be a "slave"...

 

[NoStateofMind]

The law:

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the commissioner ruled. “The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

Don't like the laws, don't set up shop offering yourself up to be a "slave"...

So you agree the law creates a slavery?

 

[umbrella39]

As justoh said, no one is forcing them to open a business and sell a product.

There are laws. One of the tenets of business is to follow the laws. If you realize there are laws we all have to follow in society and business then cry about them in retrospect when you have broken them, you are neither victim nor slave...

 

[Meghan54]

So you agree the law creates a slavery?

No, but as soon as the law allows people to sell you, kill you with the full permission of the law, acknowledges that you are property of someone else, sure, I'll admit a law can create slavery.

 

[NoStateofMind]

As justoh said, no one is forcing them to open a business and sell a product.

There are laws. One of the tenets of business is to follow the laws. If you realize there are laws we all have to follow in society and business then cry about them in retrospect when you have broken them, you are neither victim nor slave...

And again this isn't about the business itself, it's who that business is serving that is at issue. Do you not see how you're all working in circular logic to avoid admitting what it truly is?

Is one a slave to be forced to do that which is against his own conscience? In this case they had a religious reason, whether accurate or pure nonsense but a principle of life nonetheless, which precluded them from acting in direct opposition to their foundational beliefs. You don't have to like their beliefs and you can make that known through word of mouth (freedom of speech) and spending your money elsewhere, but to use the violent force of the State to make them comply with your belief system is undermining their Human Right to freely associate.

A license is just a Right taken by force and sold back to you with strings attached.

 

[NoStateofMind]

No, but as soon as the law allows people to sell you, kill you with the full permission of the law, acknowledges that you are property of someone else, sure, I'll admit a law can create slavery.

So forcing you to serve someone you don't want to serve isn't slavery?

 

[feralkid]

So forcing you to serve someone you don't want to serve isn't slavery?

Not it is not.

It has been explained to you six ways to Sunday.

 

[justoh]

Except they aren't being forced? Did they make the cake? If they did then there wouldn't be any controversy, surely.

 

[CitizenKain]

Oh no, the teenager living in his parents basement is posting again.

 

[SheHateMe]

Aren't these the same religious idiots that refused to bake a cake for this couple and then Doxxed them on their facebook page after the owners got a notification that a complaint was filed against them?


If so, these people are cunts and should absolutely be forced to pay. You don't fucking expose someone's personal information (including their address!) to your supporters so that they can be harassed.


They should know that you shouldn't throw stones and hide your hands.

 

[Vic]

IF you have to ask for permission to travel, IF your wealth is forcefully confiscated for whatever reason, and IF you are forced to serve those you wish not to because you don't have the freedom of association or contract in public then....

Those IFs are why it IS slavery.

Why would any business owner want to refuse to provide a product or service, that they normally provide, to anyone except for inability to pay? How can it be slavery to take money from paying customers?
Seriously, this is not a gay issue, or a Christian issue, or even a property issue. It's about doing business in a capitalist economy.
If a bakery can refuse to bake a cake for someone because of their sexuality, then a bank can just as easily refuse to make a loan to someone because they're black. Or a realtor could refuse to sell a house to a Jewish family. Practices which were ruled illegal decades ago, not because they are cruel acts of bigotry (which they still are of course), but because such discrimination is bad for business (see Heart of Atlanta v US).
If you're open for business, then you need to be open for business. And you can still refuse service to any single person you feel like, you just can't refuse service to 'their kind.'
But, in fairness, I guess the reason this doesn't concern me is because it doesn't affect me. I'm not a douchebag. I do business with customers that I don't actually like or agree with all the time, but I still do my job and take their money.

 

[werepossum]

from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ay-damages-wedding-cake-cas-article-1.2380883



Any better description available of con-artist from the donors suckers who donated for the fine?

Any ideas on how this ends? Will their bakery be put into collection and have to be sold to pay this fine?

They have already lost their bakery. Which is odd considering how much they have raised. G_d is a big boy and I highly doubt He needs you to lose your dream just to help him fight gay marriage. How bizarre that someone would give up a business simply to avoid serving someone else.

I agree the amount is insane, but since they obviously have it, then assuming the Commissioner has that power they should put it into escrow. Otherwise they are going to find that we do still have debtor prison if the debt is owed to or by order of government.

 

[woolfe9998]

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



maybe not?

I didn't mean the plaintiffs were awarded damages because the defendants released the information. It was for emotional distress stemming from the publicity related to the case. An inevitable consequence of defendants' having broken the law, regardless of whether defendants themselves released any information.

 

[shira]

IF you have to ask for permission to travel, IF your wealth is forcefully confiscated for whatever reason, and IF you are forced to serve those you wish not to because you don't have the freedom of association or contract in public then....

Those IFs are why it IS slavery.

You do have to ask permission - and receive a visa as documentation of permission received - to travel to many places.

Your wealth - or a portion of it - will be confiscated if you violate certain rules in obtaining that wealth, or in retaining a share of that wealth to which you're not entitled.

And you will be obligated (absent a valid reason to do otherwise) to serve everyone who seeks the services of any public-accommodation business you engage in as a pre-condition of obtaining or retaining a license for that business.

None of these restrictions on personal freedom are remotely "slavery," unless your claim is that all laws constitute slavery, especially laws defining felonious behavior and the severe restrictions on freedom that will be applied by the government to anyone found guilty of a felony.

 

[justoh]

I didn't mean the plaintiffs were awarded damages because the defendants released the information. It was for emotional distress stemming from the publicity related to the case. An inevitable consequence of defendants' having broken the law, regardless of whether defendants themselves released any information.

Interesting. What if they didn't complain? Still inevitable?

 

[Vic]

Interesting. What if they didn't complain? Still inevitable?

Complaints are protected speech. Retaliation usually isn't.

 

[werepossum]

I didn't mean the plaintiffs were awarded damages because the defendants released the information. It was for emotional distress stemming from the publicity related to the case. An inevitable consequence of defendants' having broken the law, regardless of whether defendants themselves released any information.

I have mixed feelings about this, but I'm guessing in general that if the authority adjudicating a complaint feels the guilty party has been a dick - even if that dickocity is not technically illegal - then the punishment will tend to be more severe. I am not familiar with the individuals on either side, but the clear object in posting the complaintants' names is to say "these people are mean to us and you should hate them too". That is always risky. If the plaintiffs are seen to be offense farming asshats then some mitigating pressure can be placed on the adjudicating authority, but otherwise it backfires. I don't agree though that this should be independent of the parties' behavior, as the amount of reasonable emotional distress (not a term I like anyway) seems to me to be at least potentially more affected by the plaintiffs' and defendants' behavior post-incident than by the incident itself, especially given that the offense is a refusal to bake a wedding cake. I agree this is an actionable offense against public accommodation laws, but calling it emotional distress makes it seem more to me like the plaintiffs need to grow the fuck up.

 

[KK]

I'm waiting on anandtech to pay me 135k for not allowing me to voice my opinion on a public forum. Just because we have different views doesn't mean that they can trump my constitutional rights.

 

[umbrella39]

Are you seriously THIS stupid...

 

[woolfe9998]

I have mixed feelings about this, but I'm guessing in general that if the authority adjudicating a complaint feels the guilty party has been a dick - even if that dickocity is not technically illegal - then the punishment will tend to be more severe. I am not familiar with the individuals on either side, but the clear object in posting the complaintants' names is to say "these people are mean to us and you should hate them too". That is always risky. If the plaintiffs are seen to be offense farming asshats then some mitigating pressure can be placed on the adjudicating authority, but otherwise it backfires. I don't agree though that this should be independent of the parties' behavior, as the amount of reasonable emotional distress (not a term I like anyway) seems to me to be at least potentially more affected by the plaintiffs' and defendants' behavior post-incident than by the incident itself, especially given that the offense is a refusal to bake a wedding cake. I agree this is an actionable offense against public accommodation laws, but calling it emotional distress makes it seem more to me like the plaintiffs need to grow the fuck up.

The basic rule for damages in a civil case is that a defendant proven to have acted wrongfully is liable for "all damages proximately caused by his wrongful conduct." The word "proximately" leaves some room for arguing that a particular type of harm wasn't foreseeable, but it isn't that much room. If you do something legally wrong it's pretty foreseeable that litigation could negatively affect the plaintiff in a variety of ways. In this case, having to pay for emotional harm resulting from publicity inevitably stemming from the litigation is similar in concept to having to pay for the plaintiff's court costs (but usually not attorney's fees). Both result from a litigation which wouldn't have happened had the plaintiff not acted wrongfully.

Also, in general it must be proven that some form of injury was foreseeable but the full extent of the injury doesn't have to be foreseeable. So if you're negligent and it was foreseeable that the negligence would cause harm, it doesn't matter if the plaintiff was unusually sensitive and suffered a more serious injury than an average person. You still have to pay for the entire injury. This is true whether the injury is physical, emotional, or both.