Posted on 02/04/2015 1:28:16 PM PST by Enlightened1
Christian owners of a bakery in Gresham, Oregon, who were forced to close their business in 2013 due to backlash over their refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding based on religious objections, were found guilty of discrimination Monday and now have to pay the couple up to $150,000 in fines.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, Aaron and Melissa Klein, will have to pay the sapphic couple. Whether or not they pay the maximum $150,000 fine will be determined at a hearing on March 10 BOLI spokesman, Charlie Burr
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Cute Jim, very cute.
“now have to pay the couple up to $150,000 in fines.”
Up to?
The actual amount of the fine will be important. If it is a dollar, that sends an entirely different message.
The political side of the war has been raging since the 1960s. I think it's only a matter of time before it the struggle gets ramped up.
$150,000 for saying no I can’t bake you that ? Insane
Once again we see that gay rights trump the Constitution.
Whatever happened to the store’s right to “we reserve the right to serve”?
Fine, then the bakery could “lose” the order, mix up the date, deliver the wrong cake, add salt instead of sugar to the batter, arrive late and drop it, claim they’re booked that day or any sort of oopsie. Any “mistake” is way cheaper than a lawsuit or a closed business. These days, with so many ridiculous premeditated law suits, owners should be prepared to protect themselves.
They should not be fined 1 cent for their beliefs.
It’s a complete violation of the 1st Amendment by Authoritarian control freaks.
Exactly! Well said!
You no longer have the right to refuse service to anyone -
Hm, if it is fines, Oregon's own Constitution has this to say:
Art I, Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense. — In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
But more interestingly, this whole case seems rather suspect under the State's Constitution:
Art I, Section 2. Freedom of worship.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Art I, Section 6. No religious test for witnesses or jurors.
No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness, or juror in consequence of his opinions on matters of religeon [sic]; nor be questioned in any Court of Justice touching his religeous [sic] belief to affect the weight of his testimony.
Art I, Section 34. Slavery or involuntary servitude.
There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in the State, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Keeping those in mind, maybe they ought to try a case of Deprivation of rights under color of law against the issuing court and the state agency.
If that is the case, then the Thirteenth Amendment is no longer in effect.
All due respect, this isn't about Christian morality. This obscene government over-reach is an assault on the most basic rights.
The left poisoned the civil rights debate by imposing government control over private hiring and private business transactions.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have stopped at outlawing discrimination by government. The idea that anyone can claim a "right" to be served by a private business owner, or to be hired by a private business owner is a violation of the most basic human rights to associate and the right to make an honest living.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, other than the fact that the Christian worldview lies at the heart of Western Civilization in general and American civilization in particular, and is the foundation of the American view of human rights.
Sorry that the above post is not as clear or even grammatically correct as it should be. I got a phone call as I was writing it and absolutely hit the “post” button before I finished it.
I remember signs in establishments that stated they had the right to refuse service to anyone .... seems that is no longer the case since the formation of the GAYSTAPO.
Of this, there is no doubt. Lock me up.
Did the bakers lose individually, or did the business/proprietorship/corporation lose?
If the latter, and I’d think it should be, I’d hand them (with heavy gloves) the [bankrupt] business, and just go setup shop in a more sane state.
Land of the free huh?
Will you be able to go into a store and demand X even if they only make Y ? Then sue them ?
Disgusting.
A pox on the lesbians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.