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

[woolfe9998]

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

They had a legal right to complain if the defendants broke the law. That's why the law deems any injury stemming from the making of that complaint (excepting plaintiff's attorney's fees) to be the defendant's responsibility. Remember, the plaintiff must first prove the defendant broke the law before he or she can recover for any injury at all. However, once you've broken the law, you're going to have to pay for injury flowing from your illegal act. It actually makes perfect sense.

Now, if you think the amount awarded was too much for whatever amount of emotional distress they experienced, that's a different argument. And one for which there is practically no remedy. On appeal you can challenge many things but the amount of damages awarded by a judge or jury for something like emotional distress is very unlikely to ever be overturned.

 

[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?

 

[woolfe9998]

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

This question was asked of me and it's been answered already. Another way to answer is this: it doesn't matter because they had a legal right to make the complaint.

Suppose this was a rape case where the victim reports it to the police. There is a criminal trial where the victim suffers all kinds of distress, being called a slut by the defense attorney, etc. Defendant is nonetheless convicted. Victim then sues for civil damages, and asks to be compensated for emotional distress, not only for the rape, but for what she went through during the trial. According to the logic you are implying, those damages were the victim's fault for deciding to report the rape to the police. After all, had she just not reported it, she wouldn't have had to go through that. It's not a very good argument. The wrongdoer is going to pay for the injuries, not the victim who decides to complain. That's why the law pretty much everywhere works the way it does.

 

[justoh]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inevitable?s=t

sure to occur, happen, or come; unalterable:

you're welcome

 

[woolfe9998]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inevitable?s=t



you're welcome

Do you have a point to make here other than quibbling with my use of the word "inevitable?" I've explained how the law works here. So if you have a point of substance to make, please do so.

 

[justoh]

I've explained how the word works.

 

[slag]

Emotional suffering is bullshit. Even though the bakers were completely in the wrong in every sense - legally, morally, and just being decent human beings - the idea of paying someone for their poor little hurt feelings is something anyone older than a kindergartner should be ashamed of. If the labor commissioner wants to make a statement, then order them to provide $135k worth of free cakes to low-income gay couples who otherwise couldn't afford a nice wedding cake.

Really? they were wrong?

I don't think so, and neither do lots of people who donated to their case. The bakery, as a business, should have the ability to refuse service to anyone. If you don't like it, go get a cake baked somewhere else.

 

[glenn1]

Really? they were wrong?

I don't think so, and neither do lots of people who donated to their case. The bakery, as a business, should have the ability to refuse service to anyone. If you don't like it, go get a cake baked somewhere else.

Do you just wake up from the 1950s or earlier? Public accommodation laws have likely been in existence for longer than you've been alive.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Really? they were wrong?

I don't think so, and neither do lots of people who donated to their case. The bakery, as a business, should have the ability to refuse service to anyone. If you don't like it, go get a cake baked somewhere else.

And if you can get enough of your buddies to do the same thing with their businesses in your small town you can get rid of all the homos and darkies since they won't have much choice. Win win amiright?

 

[alien42]

Really? they were wrong?

I don't think so, and neither do lots of people who donated to their case. The bakery, as a business, should have the ability to refuse service to anyone. If you don't like it, go get a cake baked somewhere else.

lots of people are idiots and in your world businesses should be able to put up signs that say "White's only".

i thought this was a problem we solved decades ago.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Not sure I like that, as it means that whiny, annoying, easily offended people are legally due more than reasonable people for exact same action.

Really? they were wrong?

I don't think so, and neither do lots of people who donated to their case. The bakery, as a business, should have the ability to refuse service to anyone. If you don't like it, go get a cake baked somewhere else.

In theory I agree. In practice, social mores tend to cluster and societal pressure tends to encourage discrimination rather than the opposite. Having already been down this road before, I agree with alien42: we solved this problem half a century ago. It's all well and good to support the shop owners' rights, but fair public accommodation means that in setting up to serve the public one inevitably loses some personal freedom. That is simply civilization, and if one wants its benefits (and there probably aren't a lot of unlicensed frontier bakeries) then one must accept the loss of freedom that provides those benefits.

This is basic kindergarten: Hold hands, be nice, play fair.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure I like that, as it means that whiny, annoying, easily offended people are legally due more than reasonable people for exact same action.

Every person is different though. What if someone's bones are more brittle than the average person's? They might be injured more severely than the average person in an accident and so they would be due more than the average person for the exact same action. Or if we're confining it to mental issues what if a person had PTSD or something? They might also be more 'injured' by a specific action than the average person too. (and remember, PTSD used to be viewed as a personal failing much like being 'whiny'.)

It seems the fairest way is to just hold people responsible for the damage caused by their conduct.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I think the penalty was too low, take away their half million the anti-gay suckers donated plus $250,000.00 in personal funds on top of it.

 

[werepossum]

Every person is different though. What if someone's bones are more brittle than the average person's? They might be injured more severely than the average person in an accident and so they would be due more than the average person for the exact same action. Or if we're confining it to mental issues what if a person had PTSD or something? They might also be more 'injured' by a specific action than the average person too. (and remember, PTSD used to be viewed as a personal failing much like being 'whiny'.)

It seems the fairest way is to just hold people responsible for the damage caused by their conduct.

But emotional trauma is inherently unknowable, which largely changes the equation to those being better compensated who have better lawyers and/or more sympathetic psychiatrists.

 

[bshole]

But emotional trauma is inherently unknowable, which largely changes the equation to those being better compensated who have better lawyers and/or more sympathetic psychiatrists.

Yea I think about the emotional trauma of all the vets coming back from Iraq and I have to believe that this couple's trauma was far far far less than that. Thank God we don't have to pay for all the emotional trauma that we willingly expose thousands of young men to in meat grinders.

I thought the judgement was excessive. I would prefer a graduated punishment. First instance, $10K, second instance $25K, etc..... The scorched earth draconian punishment is not really justifiable. Give them a chance to do the right thing.

 

[fskimospy]

But emotional trauma is inherently unknowable, which largely changes the equation to those being better compensated who have better lawyers and/or more sympathetic psychiatrists.

Emotional trauma is of course not inherently unknowable, it's based on the evaluation of professionals with a lot of education and experience in the issue. It is LESS certain than other forms of injury, but if we accept emotional trauma is inherently unknowable then there's no point in wasting a lot of money on treating people with most mental illnesses. We don't even know if they have it, after all.

Additionally, the courts don't have to rely on one person's psychiatrist. The system is adversarial for a reason.

 

[bshole]

Emotional trauma is of course not inherently unknowable, it's based on the evaluation of professionals with a lot of education and experience in the issue.

Yea right, like somebody wouldn't lie to the professional for their own personal financial gain. The extent of emotional trauma is known only to the person who experiences it. Anything he says to the professionals about his trauma is simply hearsay.

 

[fskimospy]

Yea right, like somebody wouldn't lie to the professional for their own personal financial gain. The extent of emotional trauma is known only to the person who experiences it. Anything he says to the professionals about his trauma is simply hearsay.

Hearsay is things like a statement of events by a person who did not witness them. It's not a person telling their therapist what has traumatized them. Whatever you're trying to say, you're using the wrong term.

As I said before, there's a reason why we have an adversarial system. If the defense believes the plaintiff is lying they can ask to have him evaluated by another psychiatrist, introduce their own expert testimony to the contrary, etc.

 

[justoh]

Shouldn't the state or local govt be responsible for the damages? After all, they created the action, and then encouraged the process. She didn't even know she was making a formal complaint when she texted.

“I thought I was leaving a comment for the Better Business Bureau, and I didn’t think much of it,” Bowman-Cryer told the newspaper in her first interview about the case.

If not for the govt trying to make an example of the bakers...

 

[werepossum]

Yea I think about the emotional trauma of all the vets coming back from Iraq and I have to believe that this couple's trauma was far far far less than that. Thank God we don't have to pay for all the emotional trauma that we willingly expose thousands of young men to in meat grinders.

I thought the judgement was excessive. I would prefer a graduated punishment. First instance, $10K, second instance $25K, etc..... The scorched earth draconian punishment is not really justifiable. Give them a chance to do the right thing.

Agreed. Part of this though is to eliminate having to adjudicate a lot of such cases, with a lot of such victims.

Emotional trauma is of course not inherently unknowable, it's based on the evaluation of professionals with a lot of education and experience in the issue. It is LESS certain than other forms of injury, but if we accept emotional trauma is inherently unknowable then there's no point in wasting a lot of money on treating people with most mental illnesses. We don't even know if they have it, after all.

Additionally, the courts don't have to rely on one person's psychiatrist. The system is adversarial for a reason.

Yeah, I suppose I can buy that. Just a lot easier to game the system with mental anguish.

 

[woolfe9998]

Not sure I like that, as it means that whiny, annoying, easily offended people are legally due more than reasonable people for exact same action.

Yeah, that's what juries are for. In my experience, they don't like plaintiffs who come across as whiny and are not generous to them. There are exceptions of course. Juries don't get everything right, no matter what the issue.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, that's what juries are for. In my experience, they don't like plaintiffs who come across as whiny and are not generous to them. There are exceptions of course. Juries don't get everything right, no matter what the issue.

Good point.