Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

[roamer_1]

Oh, wait...

[goodwithagun]

Anything beyond this argument is flat wrong. and I don't care who you are.

Completely agree. I even stand by a muslim baker refusing to bake a bacon cake. If I don’t do that, I can’t support a Jewish baker for refusing to bake a bacon cake.

[roamer_1]

Completely agree. I even stand by a muslim baker refusing to bake a bacon cake. If I don’t do that, I can’t support a Jewish baker for refusing to bake a bacon cake.

That's right.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

I didn't cite Oregon state law, I cited you, chapter and verse.  So unless you're willing to out *yourself* as a straw man, perhaps you should answer the question.

Can an artist legally refuse a specific commission?

Is that grown up enough for you?

No, it's not.  It's childish, and an attempt to dodge the issue.

[Oceander]

In addition to the flamboyant hatred on display here, there is abundant evidence of a classic error:  that which is stupid is not for that reason unconstitutional.  One of the "benefits" of a representative system is that the people get to choose how they're governed, and that means they can make some wicked stupid choices.  Well, this is one of those wicked stupid choices that is, despite its stupidity, constitutional (other than, in my view, the amount of the penalty, which is excessive).

[roamer_1]

One of the "benefits" of a representative system is that the people get to choose how they're governed, and that means they can make some wicked stupid choices. 

In what possible way does judicial fiat under the color of law express the will of the people and a representative system?
Were this actually enacted by law, according to the states, this problem wouldn't even be here.

[INVAR]

In what possible way does judicial fiat under the color of law express the will of the people and a representative system?
Were this actually enacted by law, according to the states, this problem wouldn't even be here.

Perception being reality and the fact that none of the other branches have lifted a finger to restrain lawlessness, the Judiciary IS the Law and can make 'law' by fiat.

Which is how you get a populace that believes that Separation of Church and State is the entirety of the First Amendment and that Gay Marriage and Abortion are enumerated and inviolable Rights.

[HoustonSam]

No, it's not.  It's childish, and an attempt to dodge the issue.

It *is* the issue.

You've taken the position @Oceander that any speech for which one is compensated can be compelled, yet you refuse to defend the obvious implications of that position.  Instead you hide behind the false bravado of puerile "kiddo" and "grow up" replies.  So yes, there is a childish attempt at a dodge in play here, but everyone reading this thread can clearly see that the attempt is yours.

I'll ask you again, can the state of Oregon compel an artist to accept a commission?  Can it compel a musician to write a song, or a newspaper editor to write an editorial in a particular way?  All those people are paid to express.  How is their expression different from that of the baker?

In fairness to you, I see you arguing in 136 and 279 that you find the law stupid but constitutional; you defend its fundamental legality but not its content.  If you really disagree with the law's content then why not simply provide an honest answer to my question, rather than dodging it with insults and contentions which are clearly indefensible?

[Frank Cannon]

12 pages on this stupid topic? I'll bet a dollar that this baker made the shittiest cakes around and deserves to be out of business.

[INVAR]

12 pages on this stupid topic? I'll bet a dollar that this baker made the shittiest cakes around and deserves to be out of business.

Then let the market decide that.

Not government and their courts empowered by the Gay mafia.

[Frank Cannon]

Then let the market decide that.

Not government and their courts empowered by the Gay mafia.

Meh. I got the govt' up my ass on who I can rent to or not. No one is crying the blues for the slumlords of the nation. Don't give a shit about a baker hiding behind his bible.

[truth_seeker]

In what possible way does judicial fiat under the color of law express the will of the people and a representative system?
Were this actually enacted by law, according to the states, this problem wouldn't even be here.

The subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.

The judges are merely saying yes, follow that law or suffer the legal consequences. 

[roamer_1]

The subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.

The judges are merely saying yes, follow that law or suffer the legal consequences.

No, it is being interpreted that way.

[verga]

Completely agree. I even stand by a muslim baker refusing to bake a bacon cake. If I don’t do that, I can’t support a Jewish baker for refusing to bake a bacon cake.

@goodwithagun 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Anything beyond this argument is flat wrong. and I don't care who you are.

The 1950's called ... they want their sign back.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, it is being interpreted that way.

It is, and the silence among the Legislators who passed this is deafening.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.

The judges are merely saying yes, follow that law or suffer the legal consequences.

The state Bureau of Labor and Industries enacted on the complaint filed with it.  That agency does not have the authority or mission to handle such a complaint.

So the 'law' was trashed in order to appease those who filed a complaint.

Wherein is the 'subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.' you speak of with such dignity?

[sneakypete]

Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Washington Post, Dec 28, 2017, Steven Dubois | AP



Their lawyers said 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.

@Right_in_Virginia

I agree with their lawyers. This was a POLITICAL ruling,not a legal one.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In addition to the flamboyant hatred on display here, there is abundant evidence of a classic error:  that which is stupid is not for that reason unconstitutional.  One of the "benefits" of a representative system is that the people get to choose how they're governed, and that means they can make some wicked stupid choices. Well, this is one of those wicked stupid choices that is, despite its stupidity, constitutional (other than, in my view, the amount of the penalty, which is excessive).

Is it?  The BOLI enacted on a complaint in which it had no jurisdiction, so how is that 'constitutional'?

[sneakypete]

@Oceander

I didn't cite Oregon state law, I cited you, chapter and verse.  So unless you're willing to out *yourself* as a straw man, perhaps you should answer the question.

Can an artist legally refuse a specific commission?

@HoustonSam   @Oceander

Of course. He's an artist,not a slave. Free people have rights.

[Jazzhead]

I figured if you advertise the service, you're obligated to the point you can't refuse on religious/sexual beliefs.  So bake the cake.

That's basically correct.   Remember - and this is crucial - this is all taking place in the context of a public accommodation -  a business that by its nature deals with customers who enter off the street in response to a menu of posted services.    This is not a matter of an "artist refusing a specific commission" - such artists don't typically function as public accommodations, and contract individually with clients.   

The specter of discrimination with respect to public accommodations has its genesis, of course, in the Jim Crow south,  where white-only lunch counters were in some places the norm - and defended on religious grounds!   The community has determined that if you open yourself to the general public and post a menu of services, then you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race, religion or - in Oregon - sexual orientation.

So the baker clearly violated the law and the victims of his discrimination are entitled to justice.  But - again - I strongly believe the monetary damages were excessive, especially in the context where the law's application has heretofore been unclear.   Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That's basically correct.   Remember - and this is crucial - this is all taking place in the context of a public accommodation -  a business that by its nature deals with customers who enter off the street in response to a menu of posted services.    This is not a matter of an "artist refusing a specific commission" - such artists don't typically function as public accommodations, and contract individually with clients.   

The specter of discrimination with respect to public accommodations has its genesis, of course, in the Jim Crow south,  where white-only lunch counters were in some places the norm - and defended on religious grounds!   The community has determined that if you open yourself to the general public and post a menu of services, then you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race, religion or - in Oregon - sexual orientation.

So the baker clearly violated the law and the victims of his discrimination are entitled to justice.  But - again - I strongly believe the monetary damages were excessive, especially in the context where the law's application has heretofore been unclear.   Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.

So allowing an entity like BOLI to enact a ruling outside its legal jurisdiction in your mind is 'Justice'?

[HoustonSam]

That's basically correct.   Remember - and this is crucial - this is all taking place in the context of a public accommodation -  a business that by its nature deals with customers who enter off the street in response to a menu of posted services.    This is not a matter of an "artist refusing a specific commission" - such artists don't typically function as public accommodations, and contract individually with clients.   

The specter of discrimination with respect to public accommodations has its genesis, of course, in the Jim Crow south,  where white-only lunch counters were in some places the norm - and defended on religious grounds!   The community has determined that if you open yourself to the general public and post a menu of services, then you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race, religion or - in Oregon - sexual orientation.

So the baker clearly violated the law and the victims of his discrimination are entitled to justice.  But - again - I strongly believe the monetary damages were excessive, especially in the context where the law's application has heretofore been unclear.   Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.

This is precisely a case of an artist refusing a specific commission.  They asked for an individual contract to produce a single, specific, custom item.  Whether or not they made that request within a walk-in shop does not change the nature of the request.

The Jim Crow lunch counters refused service to black people period; the baker engaged in no such refusal.  He was completely willing to sell them anything else in his shop.  He was unwilling to prepare a custom item which expressed a value with which he disagreed.

Now I'm not arguing that a court must agree with me; given the plastic definition of "Constitutional", I refrain from predictions about specific legal outcomes.  But I won't refrain from comment on the illogic or inconsistency of such outcomes.

[Jazzhead]

This is precisely a case of an artist refusing a specific commission.  They asked for an individual contract to produce a single, specific, custom item.  Whether or not they made that request within a walk-in shop does not change the nature of the request.

The Jim Crow lunch counters refused service to black people period; the baker engaged in no such refusal.  He was completely willing to sell them anything else in his shop.  He was unwilling to prepare a custom item which expressed a value with which he disagreed.

Now I'm not arguing that a court must agree with me; given the plastic definition of "Constitutional", I refrain from predictions about specific legal outcomes.  But I won't refrain from comment on the illogic or inconsistency of such outcomes.

It's not that simple.   First,  this is in the context of a public accommodation. Second, the facts are that the refusal of service had nothing to do with the customization or artistry required.   The baker wouldn't do any custom cake for any gay wedding.  The refusal of service took place before any discussion of message or decoration had taken place.   Despite the fact that the baker's store clearly advertised wedding cakes to the general public. 

Gay citizens have the same rights, as members of the general public, as anyone else, including the right under the law to request advertised services from a public accommodation without arbitrary humiliation.    (You'll recall that, in addition to refusing service,  the baker told his customer that the reason therefore was that her lesbian relationship was an abomination.)

 

  When told there was no groom, Klein said he was sorry but the bakery did not make cakes for same-sex weddings. According to documents from the case, Rachel and her mother left the shop, but returned a short time later. As Rachel remained in the car, in tears, her mother went in to speak with Klein.

The mother told Klein she had once thought like him, but her “truth had changed” when she had two gay children. Klein responded by quoting Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” 

 

[Cyber Liberty]

"Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.

What a crock of Shinola.  These bakers have been called "bigots" at every turn, and to my puny brain, a bigot is about the lowest form of subhuman there is.  Bigots do things like Genocide.  If they are truly bigots, justice demands they be put out of business and maybe forced to wear ankle monitors as well, lest they take the tiny extra step and start killing the objects of their ire.  Moral consistency demands it.

It would appear, from the size of the fines levied against these miscreants, the bureaucrats agree with me.