Page 1 of 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 127

Thread: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    OREGON BAKERS WHO REFUSED TO MAKE WEDDING CAKE FOR LESBIAN COUPLE FORCED TO PAY $135,000 IN DAMAGES

    MIKE VANCEDECEMBER 28, 2017

    Almost fix years ago Oregon bakers refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The court ruled the bakers will have to pay them $135,000 in damages.

    Gresham Bakery has since closed. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of the bakery, argued that it is a violation of state and federal laws when they are forced to pay emotional-distress damages of $135,000 to the lesbian couple.



    Per
    Daily Mail:
    Their lawyers said (
    Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad) Avakian and the state Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ rights as artists to free speech, their rights to religious freedom and their rights as defendants to a due process.

    But the Oregon Court of Appeals sided with the state Thursday, saying the Kleins failed to show the state targeted them for their religious beliefs.


    The judges also found public statements made by Avakian before deciding the case did not establish a lack of impartiality.


    ‘Today’s ruling sends a strong signal that Oregon remains open to all,’ Avakian said after the 62-page opinion was released Thursday.


    The decision comes weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the high-profile case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.


    That baker, Jack Phillips, claims his First Amendment claims of artistic freedom were being violated – a similar issue raised by the Kleins.


    The Oregon court said the Kleins’ argument that their cakes entail an artistic expression is ‘entitled to be taken seriously,’ but it’s not enough for the couple to assert their cakes are pieces of art – they must show others perceive their creations like a sculpture or painting.


    Nothing is out of the question in liberal Portland. All of the bakeries out there competing for business and these two lesbians push their agenda and try to force a Christian bakery to make their cake. Even worse they successfully sue the bakery when they won’t do it.
    So much for (christian) religious freedom. Want to suggest what would have been the case if the bakers had been Muslim and they declined on religious grounds?
    Same thing?
    Yeah right!
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    18,132

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Sorry, but discrimination in public accommodations is just plain wrong. If we permitted people operating public accommodations to discriminate based on 'religious beliefs', then they could discriminate on ANY imaginable basis... if you open your doors to the public, it has to be ALL the public.

    Besides, what constitutes a 'sincere religious belief'? There ARE religious sects who believe that black people are black because they sinned against God, who turned them black... shall we permit THEM to discriminate, as well?
    "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
    --- Charles Pierce







  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._fine_aga.html

    By Gordon R. Friedman

    gfriedman@oregonian.com
    The Oregonian/OregonLive

    The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a decision by Oregon's labor commissioner that forced two Gresham bakers to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for whom the bakers refused to make a wedding cake.
    Melissa and Aaron Klein made national headlines in 2013 when they refused to bake a cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, citing their Christian beliefs. The Bowman-Cryers complained to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, saying they had been refused service because of their sexual orientation.
    An administrative law judge ruled that the Kleins' bakery, Sweetcakes by Melissa, violated a law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in places that serve the public. Brad Avakian, the state labor commissioner, affirmed heavy damages against the Kleins for the Bowman-Cryer's emotional and mental distress.


    The decision will likely be the most controversial ruling, and the one with the biggest impact, handed down by Avakian during his nearly 10 years in the role. He has decided not to seek re-election when his term expires next year.
    I wonder why?
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    52,323

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Obviously, God was NOT on their side!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,550

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    So much for (christian) religious freedom. Want to suggest what would have been the case if the bakers had been Muslim and they declined on religious grounds?
    Same thing?
    Yeah right!
    So you think that there is a get out for free card for obeying laws if you attend a church?

    Remarkable!
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,550

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    I wonder why?
    None of your damned buisness.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    Sorry, but discrimination in public accommodations is just plain wrong. If we permitted people operating public accommodations to discriminate based on 'religious beliefs', then they could discriminate on ANY imaginable basis... if you open your doors to the public, it has to be ALL the public.

    Besides, what constitutes a 'sincere religious belief'? There ARE religious sects who believe that black people are black because they sinned against God, who turned them black... shall we permit THEM to discriminate, as well?

    This is for Massachusetts and perhaps not applicable to Oregon
    In the Commonwealth, Chapter 151B of the General Laws of Massachusetts, as amended, makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, or disability.
    Trying to find a bit for Oregon about being unlawful discriminate in accepting one as a customer on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, or disability.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    N. Fal on Cape Cod
    Posts
    15,246

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    War is expensive. They went for it and lost.

    However, war is always stupid, and their bigotry is stupid. The vengefulness of the plaintiffs is also stupid.
    A society predicated on the assumption that everyone in it should want to get rich is not well situated to become either ethical or imaginative.

    Photographer of sailing and sailboats
    And other things, too.
    http://www.landsedgephoto.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Obviously, God was NOT on their side!
    Never seems to be for Christians. Certain other religions on the other hand . . .
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    52,323

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    Never seems to be for Christians. Certain other religions on the other hand . . .
    How many Christians have started wars RP?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    18,132

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    This is for Massachusetts and perhaps not applicable to Oregon

    Trying to find a bit for Oregon about being unlawful discriminate in accepting one as a customer on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, or disability.
    It took me 10 seconds to find this:

    Discrimination protections. Since January 1, 2008, Oregon has banned discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. The protections were added by the OregonEquality Act, signed into law by Governor Ted Kulongoski on May 9, 2007.
    "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
    --- Charles Pierce







  12. #12

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    Never seems to be for Christians. Certain other religions on the other hand . . .
    Yes judge Roy Moore lost too.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    None of your damned buisness.
    What is 'buisness'?

    If you meant 'business' then sorry that doesn't wash, the cat can look at the king.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,550

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    Never seems to be for Christians. Certain other religions on the other hand . . .
    Bull****. Followers of other religions are happy to follow the countries laws, christians on the other hand . . .
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    How many Christians have started wars RP?
    Honest Gov, I don't know. Why don't you tell me?

    PS : BTW Apparently they didn't start the crusades (a series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims started primarily to secure control of holy sites considered sacred by both groups.):
    What sparked the Crusades?
    (Seljuk Turks) took control of the Holy Lands, including Jerusalem, and closed it to all Jewish and Christian pilgrims. Pope Urban II for help in regaining these lands for Christians. Pope Urban II agreed to help and called for the first Crusade.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    22,319

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    I'm with Elf on this. Stupid on both sides. Did Jesus only multiply the loaves and fishes for straight people?
    So many questions, so little time.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    45,858

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Political and territorial dispute between empires and infighting between the monotheistic religions RP. But that's old news and continues of course. Nothing to do with localised prejudice.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    43,248

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    The "christian" right spews a lot of propaganda about that Muslims might get away with and they already know that the arguement is a lie. Take a Muslim (or Kosher Jewish) butcher for example. No one will oblige that business to make and sell bacon.* But the Muslim (or Jewish) butcher cannot refuse to sell meat to Christians, not even if the buyers are islamophobic "evangelical" christians.




    *Might not be forced to sell real bacon but could, if wanted to, sell something baconish - https://jewishfoodexperience.com/kos...st-be-flying/]

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Bull****. Followers of other religions are happy to follow the countries laws, christians on the other hand . . .

    Absolute Bull**** !! F'instance, if they are so happy to follow the countries laws, then EG why is there so much cry for 'sharia' law to be introduced by a minority (not for long on reproduction statistics) of the population, in various non-muslim countries?
    Ever tried to build churches in Muslim/Islamic countries?

    Liberalism will be the downfall of the world.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    52,323

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    Absolute Bull**** !! F'instance, if they are so happy to follow the countries laws, then EG why is there so much cry for 'sharia' law to be introduced by a minority (not for long on reproduction statistics) of the population, in various non-muslim countries?
    Ever tried to build churches in Muslim/Islamic countries?

    Liberalism will be the downfall of the world.
    Linky

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    6,148

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by ishmael View Post
    I'm with Elf on this. Stupid on both sides. Did Jesus only multiply the loaves and fishes for straight people?
    Don't be daft Ish, you know there were no gay people back in biblical times
    Somewhere between Murder and Suicide, there is a place called Merseyside.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    102

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Romans 13
    13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
    2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.


    Quote Originally Posted by skaraborgcraft View Post
    I have driven a 6.5l Dodge with diesel Cummins and it was glorious....

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    324

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Stupid on the baker's side, but really stupid for the plaintiffs. This judgement makes martyrs of the bakers when instead some harsh online reviews and maybe a picket or two could have sent the message. If the couple had there feelings hurt enough to sue, they could have asked for a dollar in damages and maintained the moral high ground. Killing with kindness always pays off in the long run.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by S.V. Airlie View Post
    Linky
    Google Sharia law in UK/ England There are a vast number of links. but here is one https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

    There are already thought to be over 80 (in 2009) Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of the UK's own legal system.

    The government should immediately closed
    these courts and sharia made illegal in the UK.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    12,122

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by ishmael View Post
    I'm with Elf on this. Stupid on both sides. Did Jesus only multiply the loaves and fishes for straight people?
    They didn’t have gay people back then. Gay and transgender are ideas created by liberals to destroy America. Don’t you keep up?

    Haha.

    I think everyone forgets Jesus rolled with creeps and thugs. You do know what tax collectors were back then, right? Iscariot? Sicarii? Whoa.
    Did everyone forget the ear slicing thug in the garden?

    Well, everyone who likes to use the Book and religion as a weapon against others rather than a tool for salvation, it seems...

    Peace,
    In A Mood, It Seems

    P.S. crosspost with Isla.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,572

    Default

    So could someone actual damages that were worth 135k?

    Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike J View Post
    Stupid on the baker's side, but really stupid for the plaintiffs. This judgement makes martyrs of the bakers when instead some harsh online reviews and maybe a picket or two could have sent the message. If the couple had there feelings hurt enough to sue, they could have asked for a dollar in damages and maintained the moral high ground. Killing with kindness always pays off in the long run.

    I wouldn't mind my (emotional-distress) feelings being hurt for US$135,000.00.

    That 'couple' can be best described as 'gold digging snowflakes'.


    Generation Snowflake - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Snowflake
    Generation Snowflake, or Snowflake Generation, is a neologistic term used to characterize the young adults of the 2010s as being more prone to taking offence and less resilient than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own.
    Background · ‎Usage · ‎Generational differences · ‎Broader usage


    Snowflake (slang) - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)
    Snowflake as a slang term involves the derogatory usage of the word snowflake to make reference to people. Its meaning has varied, but may include a person who has an inflated sense of their own uniqueness, has an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or is easily offended and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

    Background and usage · ‎Unique/special snowflake · ‎Generation Snowflake
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    47,146

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    RP, did you actually read your link? Those 'sharia courts' are 100% subordinate to English law, and getting involved with them is completely voluntary.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    12,122

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    I wouldn't mind my (emotional-distress) feelings being hurt for US$135,000.00.

    That 'couple' can be best described as 'gold digging snowflakes'.
    Maybe these snowflakes are tired of being labeled and called names, and being “less than”, so they’re fighting back with words and laws rather than fists and guns?

    Peace,
    Robert

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    RP, did you actually read your link? Those 'sharia courts' are 100% subordinate to English law, and getting involved with them is completely voluntary.
    So what is the pointing having them? IE There is therefore no point in having them.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,550

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    Google Sharia law in UK/ England There are a vast number of links. but here is one https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

    There are already thought to be over 80 (in 2009) Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of the UK's own legal system.

    The government should immediately closed
    these courts and sharia made illegal in the UK.
    U R Silly.
    Really silly, ignorant, and bigoted.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    afloat with at least 6' of water under me.
    Posts
    52,323

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    So what is the pointing having them? IE There is therefore no point in having them.
    Oh, nice change of subject RP. It doesn't matter why!

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    36,550

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    So what is the pointing having them? IE There is therefore no point in having them.
    Yep, totally ignorant.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    15,259

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Maybe these snowflakes are tired of being labeled and called names, and being “less than”, so they’re fighting back with words and laws rather than fists and guns?

    Peace,
    Robert
    If one got emotional-distressed posting on here one leaves and goes to another establishment, which is what the snowflakes should have done.
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    43,248

    Default Re: $135,000 in damages is fair and reasonable?

    In most of the pluralistic democracies, people are free to observe their religion, and that can include abiding by religious laws that are different from civil law. For example, a person with only a civil divorce and no prior declaration of nullity cannot be married in a Roman Catholic Church. There are many areas where people agree to abide by religious law. One is free, of course, to ignore religious law. And religious law may not impose involuntary penalties that infringe on life, liberty, or property.

    There are fanatics and fundamentalists (especially among the three MEMs) who attempt to push enforcing religious law in oppressive ways and not only on their own communities. That's where the line gets drawn. If two parties agree to settle a dispute through religious law, fine. But either can walk away with no civil consequence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •