1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Sweet Cakes Bakery now refusing to pay settlement

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by candyjiru, Oct 1, 2015.

  1. candyjiru

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2015
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Asia
    Gender:
    Female
  2. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    They've obviously been inspired by Kim Davis. They want their 15 minutes of fame back, since Davis is stealing all of the spotlight.
     
  3. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Why do stupid people keep becoming religious right wing idols? >.>
     
  4. Summer Rose

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    A field
    Because smart people know better.
     
  5. Oh Lilac

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Boston
    It is so infuriating! Why do people act so hatefully?
     
  6. Purp

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Honestly, this is some crap that they have to pay a settlement. Why the flip can't businesses discriminate? Oh yeah, some twisted bullshit that came out of the commerce clause giving government the right to stamp out "things that impede trade". such a bastardized ruling that took away businesses' freedoms.
     
    #6 Purp, Oct 1, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2015
  7. Jalo

    Jalo Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2015
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    I honestly don't understand what some people's PROBLEMS are. So what if it's 'against their religion'? Here's what I have to say to those people

    YOUR JOB is to make wedding cakes for people, you should EXPECT same-sex couples, just like Kim Davis' job. If you feel so strongly about your religion, then QUIT.

    I can't believe some people call these idiots 'heroes'.
     
  8. Purp

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Private sector vs. tax paid government job. The bakers shouldn't have to quit and should be allowed to discriminate freely.
     
  9. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    That depends on your interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
     
  10. Purp

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I agree, I mentioned before, the commerce clause has restricted some of the freedoms of the practices of private businesses. I think it has been abused and driven too deep into the affairs of the private sector. Don't get me wrong though, at a local level, I would deffinitely protest such businesses and want the market to take them out, but I'll be damned if I get fined $135000 for me not serving people.
     
    #10 Purp, Oct 1, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2015
  11. Kasey

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2013
    Messages:
    6,391
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    If it is court mandated they are in contempt of court judgement by not paying.
     
  12. Minamimoto_Fan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southwestern Ohio
    It's not just the fact they refused service. It's the fact that they put the couple's info out, causing them to receive death threats and the fact they almost lost their child due to the threats. So don't give me the rights excuse, these assholes gave out private information and they either need to pay up or face the consequences
     
  13. Purp

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The $135000 is from the "emotional suffering" caused by the initial refusal. The bakers received death threats too... Everybody hates each other. The main case here is that the bakers should have the right to discriminate.
     
  14. AlamoCity

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lone Star State

    The problem from this analysis is that it assumes the "Commerce Clause" was involved. The Commerce Clause is a federal Constitutional clause and not one invoked in a state/local court. There were antidiscrimination state statutes involved, but not the infamous "Commerce Clause." That's the problem with living in a federal republic with state constitutions that mirror the federal one; concepts get blurred, at least on the facts of this case.

    That said, it might be time for another thread on living constitution vs. original intent :lol:.
     
  15. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Legitimate question: do you think the bakers should have been punished at all? They doc-dropped this family (gave out their address and other personal information), and made the state almost take their foster children away due to all the death threats they received. This is also what the court took into account when reaching the settlement. That's tantamount to harassment to me at least, and I think that's an appropriate punishment.
     
  16. Purp

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    No, they have a right to post the complaints of those who complained against them. There was backlash on both parties. i don't believe any compensation should be granted.
     
  17. Minamimoto_Fan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southwestern Ohio
    It would be fine if it was JUST a complaint, but they leaked their PERSONAL FUCKING INFORMATION. ANd you can say that both sides were assholes all you want, it doesn't change the fact of what they did, these assholes can play victim all they want, but they're the ones that esculated it to this scale as soon as they put the couple's person information up and the couple's family was put at risk because of some assholes deciding to take their refusal of service and add a little endangerment to it.

    If it was a refusal to anybody else, say, them refusing somebody because of their race, it'd be cut and dry discrimination. But no, because they're gay, it's more complicated even though it's basically the same fucking logic because it's over something they can't change. Your fucking religion doesn't fucking excuse you from putting people at risk, this is the fact people are mad at them. DO I agree with people threatening them? Fuck no, I think it's just as stupid. But they are the ones who did the damage, they have a bunch of religious groups behind them because they want to try and make it a rights issue even though that's not the whole fucking reason this is an issue.

    I highly doubt that the compensation would hurt them, in fact, I'm sure some republican like Huckabee would do something like a "chick-fil-a day" and have a bunch of people raise the money for them, even though they are the ones in the wrong. These people need to get over themselves.

    And here's the funny thing, they can hate homosexuality all they fucking want, but since they're "christian" that technically means they are no longer tied to the laws of the old testiment, their god sacrificed his son so that they could detatch themselves from those old laws, but nope, let 'em be an asshole and hide behind their religion and yell, "b-but muh wrightz" when people call 'em out on what they did.
     
  18. That1Guy

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2012
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    United States
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Because unfortunately the religious right in this country seem to have a monopoly on stupid.
     
  19. Donteatthesushi

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Not out at all
    I think it's wrong and they shouldn't have pay, Kim Davis was working in a government job, these guys are a privately owned bakery and have the right to refuse service to whoever they want. You might as well sue a muslim or kosher (orthodox) meatshop that doesn't serve pork. It's called common effing courtesy. Dammit i'm not used to cussing but this annoys the hell out of me. You don't ask your jewish friend to serve you porkchops at their house so show the same common courtesy. The LGBT community also went too far in this, those who don't see it that way are wearing tinted glasses. A lot of you liberals can bash christians all you want but you're no better that the fundies yourselves, you go to extremes too. I cannot sympathize with the lgbt+ community on this one playing the victim and leaking information, sending death threats. As much as i despise the conservatives as well, you will get absolutely no sympathy from me.
     
    #19 Donteatthesushi, Oct 3, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2015
  20. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    There is a clear public good in the idea that private business still have to follow anti-discrimination laws.

    This is so for three main reasons that I can identify right now, all relying on the assumption that: a) we are talking about a society in which most goods and services are provided by private companies; and b) we are assuming all private businesses have a right to discriminate as they wish:

    The first is that people face the danger of being placed into artificial goods and services deserts. While with a baker, a dessert desert may seem trivial, there are larger consequences regarding both regional areas and large companies. For regional areas with only one or two grocers, both of which could choose to discriminate at their discretion, imagine the impact that would have on an individual or family (who might be LGBT, for instance) who should be able to rely on that. To have to drive an hour instead of five minutes to get milk is a significant hardship when it means that they have to waste time and money again and again to allow that business the right to discriminate. Large companies that possess a monopoly or at least a very large role in their area of business could deny goods and services to a group of people. That would severely inconvenience the group or groups they target. This already is a problem with Catholic charities and provisions for LGBT homeless people, for example.

    The second is that for the sake of social cohesion and the integration of varying groups into general society, private companies being able to discriminate is a significant social harm. It means that some citizens will feel safer, more accepted and socially superior. It disincentivises diversity within a community. For example, in the example of the local grocery in a regional area I mentioned in my previous point, that individual or family would feel not only far less welcome and would be less able to engage with the local community, but it would become more practical for them to leave the area because they have been denied that service. This allows for discriminatory areas to entrench their attitudes and denies the practical freedom of movement or a reasonable comfort of living for the targeted groups. This is not healthy.

    The third is that businesses are inherently somewhat public, so it is not unreasonable that the law hold them to the service of the public good. Despite their private ownership, all businesses deal with the public. The idea of the law is that it governs how individuals and groups interact with each other et cetera and I don't think I need to explain the idea that the law tends to be built around creating positive frameworks for how said individuals and groups engage with each other. So, the law does have the right to interfere with business practices, because the purpose of the law is that it should encourage positive interactions. As shown by governments' abilities to regulate the safety and quality of food, the veracity of advertising and the tax concessions or subsidies very often given to businesses, the way businesses operate is heavily reliant on the government. It's not an extreme step to stop them from discriminating, just as it isn't an extreme step to have health and safety inspectors. It's just ensuring that private business is able to fit in with the public good. I think it's safe to say that businesses, by their public nature, have a public duty.

    ---------- Post added 3rd Oct 2015 at 10:51 PM ----------

    Inappropriate analogy. The business of an orthodox Jewish butcher does not involve selling pork, so there is no expectation that they provide it. The business of the bakery involves selling cakes, regardless to whom. However, the Jewish butcher shouldn't be able to refuse to sell beef to a Muslim for the reasons I outlined in my post. That distinction is important.

    Yes, LGBT people can go to extremes, but expecting to be provided with cakes from a shop that sells cakes is not an extreme. Death threats are wrong, but they have no bearing on whether the bakery ought to pay a settlement. Most of your points in the second part of your post aren't particularly relevant to this discussion.

    ---------- Post added 3rd Oct 2015 at 11:04 PM ----------

    On reflection my third point was not really a point unto itself; it's a justification of the mechanism by which we can enforce private business to follow a public good.
     
    #20 Aussie792, Oct 3, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2015