Christian Bakers Who Lost their Business after Homosexual Attack Refuse to Pay $135K

Okay, I'm gonna try to do it right. I believe this couple is being treated very harsh by government. It's tyrannical in my humble opinion. I'm interested in the opinion of others. Thanks.
http://eaglerising.com/24561/christ...osexual-attack-refuse-to-pay-135k-in-damages/

 

Personally, I don't think the Kleins should have refused to bake the cake. A bakery is open to the public and a bakery must serve the public. There will be other businesses being sued for refusing similar requests since Same-Sex Marriage is now the law of the land.

 

I believe the government is being unduly harsh for refusing to bake a cake.

 

I also think they just could have made the damn cake, but if they "politely declined" as the article puts it, they shouldn't be punished. 135,000 bucks, man, that's really excessive.

 

Yeah, plus they lost their business. Very heavy handed for not baking a cake.

 

I wonder what the punishment would have been if the gay couple refused to bake the cake for the straight couple? With that $135,000, they should, and would be allowed to, open up a gay's only bakery. It's all hypocrisy.

Personally, I think a business should be able to deny service to someone just because he/she is ugly. Ugly people have a right to start an uglies only business.

 

The business owners were deliberately targeted. The entire thing stinks.

 

Yes. You don't play by the rules and you suffer the consequences. Perfect ruling for those phony "Christian" bigots.

 

Do you believe the punishment is just?

 

Being black I am of the opinion that they should have served them just as they would anyone else. I've been in a lot of places where I know the owner/clerk/manager didn't like me or "my kind" but you can be damn well sure I was served. Sometimes it takes a hammer to help people to do the right - and lawful - thing. They had a choice and they made it. Don't like it - get into another business where you don't have to deal with People Who Ain't Like Me.

 

Grizz, these consequences should come from the customers, not from the government.
Personally I'd think twice before I bought my wedding cake from a bakery who doesn't serve gays. The consequence would be me and other customers taking their money elsewhere.

I don't own a business but if I did I'd want to have the freedom of refusing customers I don't want to deal with for what reason ever.

 

First off, the "government" isn't the one punishing them. The were sued by the couple, and the COURT found them to be liable. They were found guilty of violating Oregon's Anti-Discrimination laws, which were the basis for the civil suit.

The article is unbelievably misleading in the statement

They are trying to make it sound like that's a fine levied by some Oregon governmental entity, when it is really a government entity being charge with enforcing a court order for losses in a lawsuit.

We can be as enraged, or supportive of the decision as you want to be, but make sure that we have the facts before we jump on the "Government is stomping on their rights" bandwagon. These people lost in court, agree or disagree with the ruling, but they lost and the law is the law.

- - - Updated - - -

This was not a punishment from the government. This was a lawsuit that they lost in a court of law. This was a civil penalty

 

What losses would those be? The couple went to another Bakery and got the same cake for a better price. They maybe lost 10 minutes of time.

 

The court is a branch of government. There are three branches. Executive, legislative, and judicial.

 

What about the Arby's that refused to serve a cop?

What about the Dunken Doughnuts that did the same?

The two Employees, both Black, weren't fired.

The chains aren't being hassled by liberal SJW thugs to the point of closure.

And nobody is suing either of those corporations.

Do you see anything wrong here?

Because the very same act of discrimination occurred and yet liberalism is silent.

Now why is that?

Because liberalism keeps insisting that it stands for quality and tolerancd for all.

But obviously that isn't the case.

Liberalism is instead only out to punish anybody who doesn't vote their way.

The hypocrisy is absolutely amazing.

So yes this is governmet tyranny.

This is liberalism infesting itself at all the right areas in order to selectively enforce its ideals and punish people who aren't on their side.

I can't wait for the war.

 

This couple is not a good example of tyrannies victims.

They broke a state non-discrimination law. They quoted anti-gay scripture at the couple. And before any case proceedings were instigated published the couples names and address online to their friends. ---Who guess what? Also think gay people should go to hell.---

The lesbian couple faced a barrage of hate mail and death threats. Was threatened with the failure to adopt their two foster children because the state was unsure whether they could protect them. Have since the event lived in a state of anxiety and fear.

The gay couple has done everything possible to avoid public attention despite this treatment.

By contrast the "christian" couple has done everything possible to get more exposure, and have raised over $350,000 from online supporters.

Victims? Makes me want to puke.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejo...ice-they-also-doxxed-them-and-their-kids.html

 

Im not defending the amount. I am tho pointing out that they did loose a civil case using Oregon's Anti Discrimination laws, not some arbitrary government fine.

 

I agree with that, but is the law doing what it is supposed to do? The OP wanted opinions on whether we think the fine is justified, so what is yours?

 

Government tyranny? Absolutely!

Obama's IRS attacking TEA Party Groups
Obama's ATF attacking gun shops
Obama's EPA attacking farmers

 

This was a civil penalty. They lost in a court of law. This was not some arbitrary government fine as was alluded to by the creative writing of the OP.

 

A case prosecuted by the state prosecutor. A fine set by that same state prosecutor. And you cant defend it because it is arbitrary.

 

Most states wouldnt even consider such a judgement. Most states ONLY allow for damages for emotional stress, when they accompany ACTUAL damages. AS WELL, 99% of their emotional distress DIDNT result from them being refused a cake and instead resulted from them suing the owners for $135,000 because they didnt want to make them a cake.

 

As harsh as you view the gov't being, the retards who gifted this couple $500,000 for not baking the cake are that much more dipsh/1tty.

 

There are no laws on the books that prevent stores from refusing to serve armed people, even cops. In the case of the Dunkin' Donuts, the manager or owner went tearing out after the cop, apologized for the rudeness of the employee and gave him his coffee at no charge.

No. And, if you looked at the facts instead of reacting to right wing nonsense, you wouldn't either. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

Because they are not the same and most people know that. Some, obviously, are easily duped.

The rest of your rant is drivel and unworthy of a response.

 

While I understand that yes, they could go down the road to another bakery, this IS in my mind the very definition of the "Slippery Slope". Most of us are not old enough to remember the Civil Rights movement. We aren't old enough to remember "Whites Only" drinking fountains, "whites only" seating areas. This is not currently at that level, and I am not inferring that it is, but it IS the slope. Where does it stop ? We need to learn from history, not repeat it