Poll of the Day > Broke Christians LOSE and Must Pay $135,000 to LESBIANS for being HOMOPHOBIC!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Former Christian Oregon Bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein will continue collecting cans to make money as a court upheld a penalty against them 5 years ago when they broke the law and refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple!!

Their bakery, Sweet Cakes, which is more like Sour Cakes was closed after the couple were ordered to pay 135,000 to lesbian couple, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer after they refused to bake them a cake and the couple tried to counter that stating the Labour Commissioner, Brad Avakian violated state and federal laws by forcing them to pay in emotional-distress damages.

They said it violated their rights as artists to free speech and religious freedom

But the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the law stating the Kleins failed to show the state targeted them for their religious beliefs

Brad Avakian said "Today's ruling sends a strong signal that Oregon remains open to all"

This comes as the US Supreme Court is hearing a high profile case im Colorado when a baker refused to make a cake for a same sex couple. Jack Phillips says his 1st amendment claims of artistic freedom are violated, similar to what's happening to the ignorant Kleins

The court said "Although we accept that the Kleins imbue each wedding ake with their own aesthetic choices, they have made no showing that other people will necessarily experience any wedding cake that the Kleins createe predominatly as 'expression' rather than as food"

Kelly Shackelford from the First Liberty institute disagreed and said the Kleins were not entitled tot he Constitution's promises of religious liberty and free speech

A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accomodations and private businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

It happened in 2013 when the lesbian couple wanted to order a cake and Aaron had asked them whom the groom was and when they said there wasn't one, he said he could not bake a cake for them because of GOD and then quoted LEVITICUS "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is abomination"

The Kleins received almost half a million in donations and hope that President Trump makes it legal to have religious freedom in their businesses as they appeared alongside Republican politicians to push their agenda.

Would you support a "religious freedom" law?.

Aaron and Melissa - Kicking Cans

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/28/21/479D2CEA00000578-5218837-image-a-19_1514498386545.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/28/22/479D2CBE00000578-5218837-image-a-28_1514498520129.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/28/21/479CE6FB00000578-5218837-image-a-10_1514497920206.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/28/22/479D2CB800000578-5218837-image-a-29_1514498540805.jpg

Rachel and Laurel - Sweet Winners

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/12/28/22/479D2CC500000578-5218837-image-a-27_1514498478790.jpg
---

Good, perfect justice
---

There's no need to support a religious freedom law as you already have that... in the constitution. Secondly, I support the libertarian right to deny service to anyone for any reason even bad reasons.

However, because the libertarians are not in power - they should have made the cake, like the cash slaves they are
---

Guess they took lessons from scientology when it comes to weaponizing the courts to advance their agendas and ruin anybody who dissents against their opinion -- while bilking that same system for a huge profit. Give the 0-loss associated with an upfront refusal to serve, the judgment is even more egregious. Granted, this nonsense might end via a SCOTUS decision.
---

Also, isn't being forced to work ... slavery?
---

I'm also a fan of the LIbertarian method, if you run a private business you should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason and be subject to public repercussion, not judicial. They broke a law that I do not agree with.
---

If you serve the public, you serve the public. That couple has done nothing wrong to warrant denial of service. What if I refused service to a veteran cause my religious belief is anti-war?

that owns
---

Ugly couple of lesbians
---

Sasamichan posted...

If you serve the public, you serve the public. That couple has done nothing wrong to warrant denial of service. What if I refused service to a veteran cause my religious belief is anti-war?

The bakers didn't do anything to have their religious beliefs defiled >_>

Either have religious freedom or don't, this pick n mix nonsense is stupid.
---

Complete garbage. It's a private business.
---

Sasamichan posted...

If you serve the public, you serve the public. That couple has done nothing wrong to warrant denial of service. What if I refused service to a veteran cause my religious belief is anti-war?

Government workers serve the public and have to serve them all. Private individual businesses can serve, or not serve, whomever the hell they like.
---

They should have just made them a terrible cake instead

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Sasamichan posted...

If you serve the public, you serve the public. That couple has done nothing wrong to warrant denial of service. What if I refused service to a veteran cause my religious belief is anti-war?

Government workers serve the public and have to serve them all. Private individual businesses can serve, or not serve, whomever the hell they like.

Except for gays.

They must be served obviously.

OmegaTomHank posted...

They should have just made them a terrible cake instead

That'd just end up being bad publicity all around, since they'd get a poor review of their cakes' quality (and "this cake sucks" isn't exactly a contrversial, partisan issue). At least this approach gets them support from their fellow bible-bashers.

Zeus posted...

Give the 0-loss associated with an upfront refusal to serve, the judgment is even more egregious.

The judgement is based on emotional damages. Having somebody do everything in their power to deprive you of cake because of who you are is emotionally damaging. Consider this a lesson in not being an asshole.
---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Complete garbage. It's a private business.

Agreed.
---

adjl posted...

Having somebody do everything in their power to deprive you of cake because of who you are is emotionally damaging.

I should've used that as a kid at people's birthday.

"I WANT CAKE!"
"It's not your birthday, no cake for you."
"I'm suing you for 100k then."
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

Having somebody do everything in their power to deprive you of cake because of who you are is emotionally damaging.

I should've used that as a kid at people's birthday.

"I WANT CAKE!"
"It's not your birthday, no cake for you."
"I'm suing you for 100k then."

I don't know what crappy birthday parties you went to, but the guests all got cake at every one I've been to.
---

They have religious freedom, but at the same time the laws of the area say "You cannot discriminate or refuse service to X Y Z groups". If they want freedom to discriminate, then it is only fair that I get to discriminate against any religion (or lack therof) in return.

At the same time, they're a private business. I would bet money the couple went there with the sole intention of being offended.
---

_Trojan_Tuvai_ posted...

At the same time, they're a private business. I would bet money the couple went there with the sole intention of being offended

Iirc they were regular customers there, the owners just didnt want to make a wedding cake.
---

adjl posted...

That'd just end up being bad publicity all around, since they'd get a poor review of their cakes' quality (and "this cake sucks" isn't exactly a contrversial, partisan issue). At least this approach gets them support from their fellow bible-bashers.

Lol

You think one or two bad cakes is going to sink a business? This approach put them on national news, if they had sandbagged the cake the gays wouldve complained to their friends or maybe at worst wrote a bad review on a website that no one reads lol

Also I guarantee in the future smart business owners are just going to deliver awful service to these gays in lieu of not serving them, and they will end up worse off for it because they decided they were entitied to a private businesses service

_Trojan_Tuvai_ posted...

At the same time, they're a private business. I would bet money the couple went there with the sole intention of being offended.

How could they have known that bakery was going to decline their request? Did the bakery have a history of that?
---

Honestly, I like money. I would just make a cake. But whatever. People should just start lying to the cake companies or whatever. Only revealing their lie after the wedding if they want.
---

slacker03150 posted...

_Trojan_Tuvai_ posted...

At the same time, they're a private business. I would bet money the couple went there with the sole intention of being offended

Iirc they were regular customers there, the owners just didnt want to make a wedding cake.

So they should've been aware of their favourite baker's religious leanings and should've known the baker has no issue with them. They destroyed the lives of people they regularly met up with for cash. That's even worse.
---

LinkPizza posted...

People should just start lying to the cake companies or whatever. Only revealing their lie after the wedding if they want.

Why? Apparently being offended is worth a small house.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

slacker03150 posted...

_Trojan_Tuvai_ posted...

At the same time, they're a private business. I would bet money the couple went there with the sole intention of being offended

Iirc they were regular customers there, the owners just didnt want to make a wedding cake.

So they should've been aware of their favourite baker's religious leanings and should've known the baker has no issue with them. They destroyed the lives of people they regularly met up with for cash. That's even worse.

Probably not. Lots of places I go everyday where I couldn't tell you about the owners or employees. Unless they made their religious views very obvious, you probably wouldn't know. And then, not only would their religion have to be obvious, but their views, too. People can be religious and serve everyone, or religious and not want to sex someone based on sexual orientation.

Also, I don't think one cake can sink a business. But it could cost them some business from certain loyal customers. But they could probably make do, I assume.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

People should just start lying to the cake companies or whatever. Only revealing their lie after the wedding if they want.

Why? Apparently being offended is worth a small house.

If you win. Haha.
---

What a disgusting miscarriage of justice. Those lesbians are horrible human beings. Hope the cake gave them food poisoning. Hope they match the usual divorce rate of homosexual couples and split within 8 years.

Seriously, the idea that you can force anyone to do business with you flies in the face of every freedom this country was founded on.

LinkPizza posted...

If you win. Haha.

It's a 100% hit rate so far, hardly a risk.
---

Justice served
---

PuddingBoy posted...

Justice served

fascism served
---

Religious liberty vs equality is the best sort of argument. Both sides are right, to a point.
---

They did not deserve all that cash for "damaged feelings" lol
---

not that i think most people on potd have the drive to start their own businesses, but if they did they might feel differently about the government stepping in and telling them who they have to do business with.
---

Yeah I don't think 130k is the right price for this. Maybe a free cake.

I hope the lesbian couple are happy, they legit ruined a business and shit on someone's American dream.
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

Maybe a free cake

only if someone shat in the batter
---

This is a step towards fascism, first the cakes then the world.

I am ok with them refusing service. Is it a douchey thing to do? Yes. And I do believe it is wrong. But it is their business, and they can serve who they want. Society will dictate whether or not they stay in business. The couple turned away can take that business elsewhere, and hopeful others start too. Eventually, they will lose all the business and have to close, or they will have loyal customers who support the same ideas and they can live in their close minded world.

so none of you actually know what fascism is, huh
---

Nightengale posted...

so none of you actually know what fascism is, huh

It's like pornography, I just know it when I see it

Yet another couple of liberals get a fat paycheck for playing victims. The sum is outrageous. Liberals should sue the RCC for not allowing gay marriage and being offended.

Still, you shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation even if it goes against your religious beliefs, but like the RCC, they made a stand against what they deem to be immoral behaviour.

What does one do then? Do you help someone who you think is doing the wrong thing, or do you refuse and get in trouble? They shouldn't be in the industry.

Someone please deny me a service so I can claim emotional distress and make $135,000.

Though I feel it being a private business should have the right to refuse service, I feel that can potentially be a slippery slope for other issues to arise. It's only a bloody cake and not some essential service like medical treatment.

Not exactly apple and apples but how would folks respond if a Jewish restaurant gets flack for not having pork on their menu? As tolerable as some Liberal say they are, I feel some are just as equally bad as some Conservatives.

If they are going to go bankrupt, it should be from the lack of business due to their stance and not because they were fined to the grave.
---

I'd be okay with this if religious freedom was revoked, but it's not so it's stupid.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

If they are going to go bankrupt, it should be from the lack of business due to their stance and not because they were fined to the grave.

Yeah, but it's a typical liberal thing to regulate capitalism so they can point and say 'see! I told you it doesn't work!' even though the whole point of capitalism is that it works best without regulation.

Noop_Noop posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

If they are going to go bankrupt, it should be from the lack of business due to their stance and not because they were fined to the grave.

Yeah, but it's a typical liberal thing to regulate capitalism so they can point and say 'see! I told you it doesn't work!' even though the whole point of capitalism is that it works best without regulation.

Fairly sure the argument against capitalism is that it's aggressively compounding, so those with none get none and those with much gain much.
---

adjl posted...

OmegaTomHank posted...

They should have just made them a terrible cake instead

That'd just end up being bad publicity all around, since they'd get a poor review of their cakes' quality (and "this cake sucks" isn't exactly a contrversial, partisan issue). At least this approach gets them support from their fellow bible-bashers.

Zeus posted...

Give the 0-loss associated with an upfront refusal to serve, the judgment is even more egregious.

The judgement is based on emotional damages. Having somebody do everything in their power to deprive you of cake because of who you are is emotionally damaging. Consider this a lesson in not being an asshole.

But there are many other places for them to go. These people respectfully declined. They did not deserve to get sued out the wazoo like they did. Just make a review and publically denounce them. No need to destroy their lives over a cake.
---

yutterh posted...

No need to destroy their lives over a cake.

You think these fat heifers can live without cake?
---

Sasamichan posted...

If you serve the public, you serve the public. That couple has done nothing wrong to warrant denial of service. What if I refused service to a veteran cause my religious belief is anti-war?

Then you'd be legally entirely within your rights atm (pretty sure there's no protection). You could also refuse to serve cops, firemen, etc. It's not smart business, but you're operating on principle.

Krow_Incarnate posted...

Complete garbage. It's a private business.

This.

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Give the 0-loss associated with an upfront refusal to serve, the judgment is even more egregious.

The judgement is based on emotional damages. Having somebody do everything in their power to deprive you of cake because of who you are is emotionally damaging. Consider this a lesson in not being an asshole.

It's a fucking cake. Not only is it completely non-essential, but there are countless other places you can get one. The only reason anybody would make a big deal out of this is they saw a way to make a quick buck or wanted to bankrupt some Christians.

_Trojan_Tuvai_ posted...

They have religious freedom, but at the same time the laws of the area say "You cannot discriminate or refuse service to X Y Z groups". If they want freedom to discriminate, then it is only fair that I get to discriminate against any religion (or lack therof) in return.

At the same time, they're a private business. I would bet money the couple went there with the sole intention of being offended.

Yes, private businesses SHOULD be able to refuse on the basis of religion as well. The only protections should be against the government restricting a group's right to buy from a private business (eg, Jim Crow)

slacker03150 posted...

Iirc they were regular customers there, the owners just didnt want to make a wedding cake.

If they were regular customers who liked the business, they wouldn't have tried to fuck them like that. It's a safe bet they did that shit knowing that there'd be a payday. Weddings are expensive, after all.
---

yall would be cool for me refusing service to christians and conservatives just for being who they are? just wanna make sure there's no hypocrisy here. like in the story about a store refusing service to those in maga hats?
---