Ore. bakery will have to pay same-sex couple up to $150K

GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery discriminated against a same-sex couple who wanted to purchase a wedding cake, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced Monday.

The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to pay the couple up to $150,000, BOLI spokesman Charlie Burr said. The exact amount will be determined at a hearing on March 10.

^^^Explain to me why it’s a sin for a bakery to make a cake.^^^
So you support this decision?
If it ain't a sin, then Christians should for forced to bake it?
Is that what you are implying?

Thank you for your explanation.

Actually, you are wrong. It is a sin.

At the basic level of faith it is sin because: "Ro 14:23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. "

It is also sin at a substantive level, if, as these are saying, they are being asked to participate in sin.

1 Co 10: 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

Can they bake a cake and give it to the person with a bag of icing for them to decorate their own? Yes. Can they put a gay message on that cake? No....because they cannot invest their energy in that any more than they can in creating a beautiful banner that says "Jesus is NOT God" for the American Atheists.

In the Arlene's Flowers case they sued both the company and the owner. (Here.) And it's been upheld.

Because the owner was an officer of the corporation, and thus had responsibility for how the corporation was run. It's still just corprate law - only.

"Because the owner was an officer of the corporation, and thus had responsibility for how the corporation was run. It's still just corprate law - only. "

Gosh FRiend, I sure wish you were correct.

I originally thought that too, until I dug in.

There are two defendents named in the PDF I referenced:

"ARLENE’S FLOWERS, INC., d/b/a ARLENE’S FLOWERS AND GIFTS; and BARRONELLE STUTZMAN,"

Here is a FReeper thread on the ruling. ("Judge: Arlene’s Flowers owner can be sued in her personal capacity")

"Her attorneys argued the claims against her personally should be dropped, describing them as unprecedented and unjust."

"In a decision Wednesday, Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled that “the clear language of the CPA (Consumer Protection Act) and WLAD (Washington Law Against Discrimination) supports both individual and corporate liability.” "

This gave me serious pause about the "limited liability" part of my LLC.

Be aware and forewarned!

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.