Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ore. bakery will have to pay same-sex couple up to $150K
KGW.com ^ | February 2, 2015

Posted on 02/03/2015 3:55:52 PM PST by SMGFan

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at consumerist.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: ac; gays; persecution; tolerance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last
To: Publius

I think you have to be a Communist to be elected to Seattle City Council.


61 posted on 02/03/2015 9:04:02 PM PST by gogeo (If you are Tea Party, the eGOP does not want you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SMGFan

Hmmm. Keep pushing it.


62 posted on 02/03/2015 9:22:27 PM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
^^^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.

63 posted on 02/03/2015 10:06:09 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

I’ll take that as a yes.


64 posted on 02/04/2015 5:45:16 AM PST by P-Marlowe (Saying that ISIL is not Islamic is like saying Obama is not an Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
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.

65 posted on 02/04/2015 7:41:35 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY
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.

66 posted on 02/05/2015 1:59:09 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
"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!

67 posted on 02/05/2015 10:02:04 PM PST by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson