Gay Marriage

Gay Wedding Cake (and Lack Thereof) May Cost Oregon Bakers $150,000

State rules religious shop owners discriminated against couple.

|

God Hats Flans.
Fox 12

The latest on the wedding cake beat: The state of Oregon has formally ruled that a bakery in Gresham discriminated against a gay couple who wanted to purchase a wedding cake. The state's Bureau of Labor and Industries could fine the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed its doors and become a home bakery in response to the controversy, up to $150,000.

We won't know exactly how much the state will actually require the baker to pay the gay couple until a hearing in March.  A look at some recent final orders at the Bureau of Labor and Industries has them ordering a convenience store to pay a woman $60,000 for refusing to let her shop there with her service dogs in tow. That was the only recent public accommodations decision.  In the bureau's interim order against Sweet Cakes, they note:

"Public accommodations complaints under the Equality Act are rare. In every year since the law's passage, public accommodations complaints based on sexual orientation and gender identity have represented less than one percent of all discrimination complaints received by the agency."

That is to say, there's very little evidence that public accommodations discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is (or ever has been) a widespread concern that has impacted people to a degree to justify this level of state intervention.

But on the plus side for Sweet Cakes owners, the agency's prosecutors failed in their attempt to bring charges against them because they "unlawfully communicated a future intention to discriminate based on sexual orientation" in subsequent media interviews. The bureau ruled against the prosecutor on this one charge. So the couple who owns the bakery will not be fined even further just for saying that they do not agree with the law and will not comply. How charitable of the bureau.

NEXT: Video: Glenn Greenwald's Plan to Poke, Prod, and Piss Off the Powerful

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The state of Oregon has formally ruled that a bakery in Gresham discriminated against a gay couple who wanted to purchase a wedding cake.

    This fact is not in dispute. The illegality of the discrimination is.

    The state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries could fine the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed its doors and become a home bakery in response to the controversy, up to $150,000.

    Nice due process you’ve got there when a fine of any magnitude, let alone $150k, can be levied extrajudicially.

    1. It’s social justice. SJ is above and beyond the fifth (& 14th) amendment.

    2. You mean like how the EPA can fine me $30,000 a day for building a garden shed on something that isn’t even a wetland by their own admission?

  2. I hope this bakery owns Oregon is a similar fashion to the way the Ohio State Buckeyes did 22 days ago.

    And in the time it took me to write that, Ezekiel Elliott ran for another 20 yards on the Ducks.

    1. He’s the energizer lion

    2. There was another high profile football game very recently.

      1. Shutting up Seacocks Nation isn’t nearly as sweet as shutting up the mouths of every SEC fanboy in the southeast. The Oregon demolition was just icing on the cake.

      2. Not a Patriots fan, but not a Carroll fan either, so watching him throw that game away on maybe the worst play ever called in the Super Bowl was pretty sweet. I have to admit I was in a state of disbelief for a few minutes there.

        1. The play call isn’t even Carroll’s worst fuckup at the end of the game.

          His number one job was clock management. The refs fucked up and let the clock run after that incredible catch. The receiver wasn’t down on the field – he was knocked out of bounds. The refs let the clock run, and Carroll did absolutely nothing about it.

  3. I was beginning to suspect that no one can possibly be considered married without a license. Now I’m discovering that a wedding cake might also be requisite.

    1. Think of all those people in tribal communities and throughout history who though they were married. License and cake trumps commitment.

      1. Let me tell you something: they all want cake.

    2. Wedding cakes are a human right.

  4. But on the plus side for Sweet Cakes owners, the agency’s prosecutors failed in their attempt to bring charges against them because they “unlawfully communicated a future intention to discriminate based on sexual orientation” in subsequent media interviews

    Send these bigots to the Death Camp of Intolerance!

    1. KEEP PORTLAND WEIRD
      (Use force if necessary)

      1. Bye keeping Portland Weird, you mean keep it social justice-ey?

  5. What’s wrong with these bakers? Just draw a frosting dick on the cake and be done with it.

    1. The Lesbian Awareness lobby would like to have a word with you, PM.

      So would the Trans, Genderqueer, post-cis and whatever other group has recently glommed onto the gay rights anagram.

      1. Can I be pre-cis? I don’t even begin to understand all these new-fangled genders, but I’ve never seen pre-cis, so can I yell DIBS!???

        1. Only a zygote can be pre-cis, dumbass.

          1. Dang, too late again.

      2. So would the Trans, Genderqueer, post-cis and whatever other group has recently glommed onto the gay rights anagram.

        The sad part is, I have NO PROBLEM with ensuring/promoting EQUAL rights to any and all of the groups you mentioned. It would be nice if they would extend me the same courtes.

        1. “It would be nice if they would extend me the same courtes[y].”

          They won’t. Once a group acquires the power to push people around, some members of that group will use that power to push people around.

    2. Seriously, what’s with all these comments that “the baker can simply sabotage the cake, ha ha.”

      If meant seriously, then that’s just wrong, because *any* “antigay” discrimination is banned by these laws, including messing up the cake for A Couple’s Special Day.

      1. And if the bakers aren’t getting much sympathy *now,* when they simply refuse to do business with same-sex weddings, imagine if they took the couple’s money and then made an obscene drawing on the cake.

        They wouldn’t just get sued, they’d be denounced as real jerks (to put it mildly).

      2. Oh, and the same with pretending to be too busy, and the other sabotage tactics suggested here.

        If plaintiffs (with the aid of liberal discovery) discover that an excuse was just a pretext for “discrimination,” not only will defendants lose, they’ll piss off the jury/administrative agency and probably get fined *more.*

      3. Yet, you have no problem telling them they can’t marry.

        You have a real problem with “equal” under the law, don’t you Eddie?

        1. What is equal? How does A=B? Show your proof.

          1. Equal is tenet 1:

            1. People may do as they please, PROVIDED, in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of another.

            That tenet maximizes liberty for all.

            1. If a word can mean anything then it means nothing. It is equality in meaninglessness, which implies there should be no legal definition of marriage at all. But it does not prove there is equality under the legal definition that exists.

              Again, show your proof, without assuming your conclusion.

              1. Who says it’s meaningless?

                Marriage- a union of two parties.

                Laws are moral, no shit. We should strive to make them so. Morally speaking, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, provided they don’t harm others.

                1. Only *two* parties?

                  1. Oh, ya got me. Good for you Eddie.

                    A voluntary union between parties.

                    Better?

                    1. Are there any relationships the state *shouldn’t* give the status of marriage?

                    2. a. The state shouldn’t be giving special favors to any class of people, at all.

                      b. If it’s a given that they do, they cannot discriminate. (14A)

                      c. To answer the question I think you are asking, no, provided it’s between consenting adults.

                    3. Cousins? Siblings? Business partners? A consenting dad and a consenting son/daughter? War buddies? The entire roster of the New England Patriots?

                    4. Gives new meaning to “Father/Daughter Day.”

                    5. Ya know, the difference between me and you is I looked at that list and applied a consistent standard supporting liberty regardless of how I feel about such a union. You look at it and want to ban the ones you feeelz are icky. No one is getting hurt, all choices are voluntary, but being a sanctimonious son of a bitch, you think you have the power to tell others how to live.

        2. “Yet, you have no problem telling them they can’t marry.”

          Really? Because I don’t recall wanting to ban same-sex ceremonies, or prevent same-sex couples from living together, or calling themselves what they please.

          I’m against the state giving its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to the relationship.

          Even the Reason editors keep these concepts straight (most of the time) – they’ve stopped referring to “legalizing” SSM and speak about “gay marriage recognition.”

          But I understand your point – you disagree with me politically, therefore I’m evil. Message received 🙂

          1. You are evil (not really, but I refuse to use emoticons) because you want the law to favor your definitions.

            1. I would phrase it that I would like the law to *recognize* something which exists prior to the state, i.e., marriage and – an associated concept (though apparently this is controversial) – the natural family.

              “B-but…sterile couples!” – Well, the conjugal union is ordered for the production of natural offspring. I would have thought that the fact that natural reproduction takes a man and a woman would have been covered in biology class.

              1. And what about polygamous marriages? They existed before the state, too.

                If you’re going to go the route of saying man-woman marriage is part of Anglo-American convention, it can easily be said that man-man/woman-woman marriage is now conventional (you admit it is acceptable above), and so the state ought to recognize it.

                1. The state used to recognize polygamous marriages, but experience showed that they were – wait for it – *bad for families.*

                  1. Gay people can and do have children (obviously not together, but straight people adopt too). If marriage is good for families, is it not also good for those families? Isn’t it good, from the family values perspective, for gay people to settle down and have normal, boring lives raising children and being members of the broader community?

                    1. “If marriage is good for families…”

                      “from the family values perspective.”

                      That raises the question of what’s a family and what values are associated with families, which brings us back to Square One.

                    2. But at least now we’re discussing the *social benefits* of recognition or non-recognition, not simply wandering around in a philosophical vacuum disconnected with lived reality.

                      And we’re discussing some distinction in the law between married and single, to the advantage of the former. So far so good.

                    3. That raises the question of what’s a family and what values are associated with families

                      But at least now we’re discussing the *social benefits* of recognition or non-recognition

                      And we’re discussing some distinction in the law between married and single, to the advantage of the former.

                      None of this matters. YOU do not get to decide how others live their lives, regardless of the advantages or disadvantages. YOU DO NOT get to impose your will on other people! PERIOD!

                    4. Ah, the ALL CAPS are back. I had thought you has stopped being serious, what with all those lowercase letters.

                    5. That raises the question of what’s a family and what values are associated with families, which brings us back to Square One.

                      If you are going to start claiming that a gay couple raising a kid together is not a family, I’m going to have to start agreeing with Francisco.
                      As far as I can see, all you argue for here is to have your own religious beliefs be the basis for all marriage law.

                    6. If you are going to start claiming that a gay couple raising a kid together is not a family, I’m going to have to start agreeing with Francisco.

                      Um…thanks?

                    7. “your own religious beliefs”

                      So I’m a Sikh, a Muslim, an Orthodox Jew, a Confucian, etc, etc, all at the same time?

          2. I’m against the state giving its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to the relationship.

            And how do you come down on the state “giving its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” to traditional hetero marriages?

            1. Of course I’m for it (but against recognizing serial adultery in the form of “remarriage” while Spouse 1 is still around).

              I really would have thought you’d have been able to figure out my position. The idea that I somehow left you in the dark on this is…interesting.

              1. So you aren’t for equal rights under the law, at all, unless it happens to support your position on the issue at hand. You want your rights to be more than another’s wrt marriage. You don’t even have the common decency to argue, “I don’t think the state should be involved in marriage at all” and leave it at that. You WANT the state to give you free shit based upon your hetero marriage, but want deprive others of the same benefits because you disapprove of their lifestyle.

                You aren’t for liberty. You are for those things you like and against those things you don’t like. You have no guiding principle or universal truth. You give lip service to libertarianism (a fellow traveler), but you don’t give a fuck about it’s basic tenets. You just happen to like “some” libertarian notions. You choose, instead, to disregard libertarian principle any time it comes in conflict with a fucking 2000 year old book that’s full of inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

                I’ve really come to dislike you Eddie, because you are a bigot.

                1. “I’ve really come to dislike you Eddie”

                  Dislike me? Wow, that came like a bolt out of the blue! I had no idea you felt that way!

                  “You don’t even have the common decency to argue, “I don’t think the state should be involved in marriage at all” and leave it at that.”

                  You don’t even have the decency to agree with me!

                  1. I had no idea you felt that way!

                    I didn’t, until you proved yourself a bigot. I have no use for bigots.

                    1. You seem to have missed the sarcasm.

                    2. Although it must be good for you to realize that, of all human beings who have lived in history, you are one of the select .01% who *aren’t* bigoted. That must be good for the ol’ self-esteem.

                    3. Thanks Eddie, it is. I attribute it to having consistent moral principles.

                    4. Seriously, 99.99% of the human race throughout history count as bigots? And you know for certain that you are exempt from that category to which virtually everyone else belongs?

                    5. Yes. The only people I intentionally discriminate against are those who violate the rights of others, i.e. those who violate the NAP.

              2. So you just want your version of religious marriage to be codified and legally recognized. Why do you beat around the bush so much? You think that the law should reflect the Catholic definition of marriage. Stop pretending there is anything behind your arguments but your own religious beliefs.

                1. “the Catholic definition of marriage”

                  I didn’t know that Sikhs were Catholics:

                  “We have no authority, neither has the Government, to change our scriptures,” “We are bound by our religious teachings and we have been put in a difficult situation.”

                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ights.html

                2. In fact, I do *not* want the entire Catholic doctrine of marriage recognized, because Catholic canon law is too liberal on divorce from the standpoint of a purely secular state. So I don’t think a secular state like the U.S. should recognize Catholic divorces under the Pauling Privilege.

                  So your premise is wrong, but I’m going to guess that won’t stop you from using this tiresome meme.

                  1. *Pauline* privilege. The Pauling privilege entitles you to marry a Nobel Prize winner.

                  2. Here’s Robert Ingersoll, agnostic and supporter of divorce, endorsing the so-called “Catholic” view of marriage as involving sexual duality:

                    “The *man and woman* are not joined together by God, or by the church, or by the state. The church and state may prescribe certain ceremonies, certain formalities?but all these are only evidence of the existence of a sacred fact in the hearts of the wedded.”

                    http://www.gutenberg.org/files…..m#link0014

                    Yup, the Catholics must have gotten to him.

      4. Sabotage tactics would not be need to even be considered if businesses could just say “No.” (you know, that thing they should be able to do if 1) they own their property & 2) they own the product of their labor.)

      5. I don’t imagine that many of those comments are terribly serious.

      6. Why couldn’t they just sabotage it in a way that nobody would ever know, like urinating in the batter?

  6. With Civil Rights laws we went from an bad system where some State and Local governments forced people not to associate with each other to a even worse system where Federal/State/Local governments force people to associate.

    1. I’m not entirely convinced that the new way is worse. But it’s a pretty apples/oranges comparison.

      Official state racism is pretty bad and directly affected a lot more people. I hate the whole “protected class” thing, but I would probably have voted for the original CRA at least since it got more right than wrong. I think it is a good role for the Federal government to force state and local governments to obey the 14th amendment.

  7. At this point, I’d be hard pressed to object if a baker induced to provide a gay wedding cake under duress laced the fucking thing with a (non-lethal) toxin.

    “Here’s your cake. Enjoy!”

    1. Same idea as the frosting dick, but you’re taking it a step further.

    2. Is it a violation of the NAP when you reply in such a fashion?

      I’m not so sure when your alternatives are: slavery (being forced to work against your will) or theft (by way of fines).

      1. I would think you are allowed to apply force to avoid enslavement.

        1. I would too, but in this scenario, he accepted the enslavement and laced the cake as a consequence of it. And it will make him no more closer to freedom than not lacing the cake, so is it actually a form of aggression?

          I know it may sound like I’m beating a dead horse, but I’m genuinely curious if people would consider this a violation.

          1. If the guests at the wedding get sick, yes. Otherwise, fair game.

            That’s why I like the frosting dick idea so much. It’s symbolic.

          2. Not a violation of the NAP.

            You may do as you choose, provided you do not infringe upon the rights of others in doing so. One has no right to cake.

            The baker’s rights are CLEARLY being infringed upon, giving him the right to retaliate.

          3. Lacing the cake would not “free” the baker(s), so I don’t see where it could be justified.

          4. Poison? That probably would escalate to the level of an NAP violation. On the other hand, if he laced it with an industrial grade dose of Ex-Lax, that would just be funny.

            1. I believe he said:

              laced the fucking thing with a (non-lethal) toxin.

              [emphasis mine]

              But yes, there is an “appropriate” level of acceptable counter force. I’d lean towards Playa’s suggestion of an obscene gesture atop the cake.

            2. Just urine. It’s undetectable, and you’re the only one who need ever know it’s there.

          5. Spiking the cake penalizes innocent parties – the wedding guests.

            So that’s out.

    3. See above.

    4. Great, add chemical/bioterrorism to the list of charges against them. Great suggestion,

  8. they “unlawfully communicated a future intention to discriminate based on sexual orientation” in subsequent media interviews

    The Ministry of Love will be conducting inquiries.

    1. First Amendment? What’s that?

      1. It was written like a hundred years ago and is hard to understand.

        1. I mean, like, there’s like, not many people who, like, speak Old English any more, y’know?

  9. Someday, somebody’s going to explain to me why the fuck you’d want to give your business to someone that hates you. What’s wrong with just moving on to the next shop and telling all your friends not to shop there?

    I know I wouldn’t be shopping anywhere where I knew the owner did that. But that doesn’t mean we should be using the force of government, including deadly force (what will eventually happen if they refuse to pay the fine?), to make them not discrimiate.

    1. “Here’s your cake. That’ll be $8,000”

    2. Because you are an asshole who wants to shove your lifestyle in the face of everyone who might object to it.

      1. John, I don’t remember if I told you that I have changed my opinion on a pretty heated topic you and I discussed some time back. I actually agree with you now that conducting business with places whose beliefs you may object to (including artists, filmmakers, etc) should not be looked down on and that it does further lead to a fracturing of society and more polarization in beliefs.

        1. Thanks. Like everything, in small doses it doesn’t matter. But if you make it big enough, you end up with a horrible intolerant society. I want a free society where politics is as unimportant as possible.

      2. Not liking discrimination against gays is a lifestyle now?

        To a large degree, I agree with you that it is not desirable to bring your personal politics into every business transaction. But is there not some level of bigotry or discrimination that would drive a reasonable person from doing business with certain people? Would you, for example, go to a restaurant that prominently displayed “no blacks or Irish allowed”? Maybe you wouldn’t care, I don’t know. But I think there is some balance to be had here.

        I think this all would be much less of an issue if it weren’t for the people on the pro-gay-marriage side who want to force everyone to have the correct beliefs and punish those who don’t. Without that, I very much doubt that many religious bakers would give a crap who they are making a cake for. I think it is good that people want to stand up for their freedom of association. But it is really a political stunt on both sides. If it weren’t all about politics, people would for the most part figure out soon enough that discrimination is not good for business. And if they don’t, well it’s none of my business.

    3. I can explain. These folks obviously didn’t want a cake, they wanted to use the government to harass somebody they didn’t like. It worked.

      1. I disagree Homple. I’d say they got their cake and ate it too.

        1. There is much in what you say.

        2. But they didn’t get their cake, did they? Isn’t that what is at issue here?

    4. People who actively opposr the social liberal ideology must be punished, no dissent can be allowed.

  10. Serious question: would it not play well for a libertarian-ish politician to come out and say he supports freedom of association merely to out those bigots in the public square who won’t bake a cake for somebody when the alternative is to further enrich those same bigots because their beliefs will never be exposed for the vile filth (pandering language, I know) that they are?

    I can’t see a valid complaint from te left to counter it in the days of public accommodation laws being unnecessary due to the ease with which people can move freely or conduct commerce in myriad ways that didn’t exist when the laws were drafted.

    1. That position is too complicated for the professional pants wetters to comprehend.

    2. Remember what happened to Rand Paul when he even suggested that he’d change the public accomodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act? It doesn’t matter how he’d said it, the reaction would’ve been the same.

      1. But I think it does matter how its proposed. You appeal to the left on the grounds that they will no longer have to enrich the bigots with closeted views. They can now force them out of business as well as those who would patronize their establishments.

        And you have to do it in a speech, NOT in an interview where you are less likely to get your overriding point cross before you get submarined by outrageous anecdotes.

        1. They know that. And they don’t have a real argument against it. But it doesn’t matter. I’ve tried that before. My prog friends came up with all kinds of scenarios (What if a black guy is out of gas and he’s at a gas station and the gas station won’t sell him gas?) to show how wrong I am.

          1. Ask them if a Jewish deli owner should be forced to make a tray of ham sandwiches for a neo-nazi gathering.

            Ask them if a black restaurant owner should be forced to seat a party of Klansmen on their way home from a cross-burning.

            1. Klansmen and Nazis are not protected classes. They didn’t make the correct list.

              CAN’T YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

              1. I’ve asked similar questions. That’s the response I’ve received.

            2. Wow – these are uncannily similar to the two arguments I’ve used in the past (and had my comments deleted and blocked on a couple of left-leaning sites).

    3. I can’t see a valid complaint from te left to counter it

      Sloopy, it is so cute that you are earnest enough to think the Left would need a valid complaint or even care to look for one.

      The complaint would be, these people are bigots and they should not be able to operate a public accommodation acting this way. You must just want people to be able to refuse service to black people, you racist tea bagger.

      1. The definition of “Public Accommodation” needs to be reaffirmed in the worst possible way.

        1. yes it does. But you know that is what they would say. I don’t know how you deal with them.

        2. And they won’t get it until it starts happening. And, even then, they’ll rationalize it away as “but, it’s diiiiferent!!!”

  11. So, does anyone have a comprehensive list of protected classes according to state and federal law? I needa make sure I don’t choose to exercise my right to free association with the wrong people, lest I be penalized for it.

    1. So, does anyone have a comprehensive list of protected classes according to state and federal law?

      Easiest to say what isn’t:

      Non-disabled white males under 40.

      Seriously. That’s it. Everyone else is in a protected class.

      The current argument is whether we need to add “straight” to the description.

      1. Wahoo! 2 more years and I’m part of a protected class!

      2. On top of that we need a hierarchy chart, since some classes are more protected than others.

        I’m a white male over 50; so far as I can see I’m not protected. I suppose theoretically I get protection against “ageists” but that doesn’t seem to get me much of anything yet. I guess I’ll have to cross over 60 or 70 before it really kicks in. Certainly I’ll never be as protected as LGBT.

        1. What happens if a lesbian refuses to serve a black guy?

          1. There’s a hierarchy

            1. Can I get a link to the flow chart?

              Where does a quadroon land on this?

          2. Look I learned all the rules to NFL tiebreakers to determine if the Viking can somehow finagle a spot in the playoffs.

            I’m not going to waste more brain cells learning an even more complex set of rules to determine who the most aggrieved party in a dispute is.

          3. Better yet, why can’t a bunch of frat boys demand service at a lesbian bar?

            1. Been there, done that

          4. color or skin is protected, is this really not that obvious to you?

        2. Where are LGBT more protected than u?

          Can u be fired for being heterosexual?

          Can u be evicted for being heterosexual?

          Can you/your spouse be denied Veterans benefits?

          Can you/your spouse be denied the ability to adopt a child or the children from a prior marriage of your spouse?

          Can you be denied a job for being heterosexual?

          I could go on, but the idea that being a white heterosexual does not give you special rights, priveleges and protections is so FOX-minded, I can only stand to even type a reply to someone for so long w/o puking….gotta go

      3. Antidiscrimination law refers to sex, race, religion, disability status, and, in some states, sexual orientation. You can no more be discriminated against for being white or male than you can for being black or female.

        1. Shut up pig.

          Just pull it out of your ass as you go, as usual. You fucking missed half of the federally protected classes.

          Race ? Civil Rights Act of 1964

          Color ? Civil Rights Act of 1964

          Religion ? Civil Rights Act of 1964

          National origin ? Civil Rights Act of 1964

          Age (40 and over) ? Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

          Sex ? Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964

          Pregnancy ? Pregnancy Discrimination Act

          Citizenship ? Immigration Reform and Control Act

          Familial status ? Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing

          Disability status ? Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation
          Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

          Veteran status ? Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
          and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

          Genetic information ? Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

          1. Yeah I missed some, and still none of them give any special privileges to anyone.

            1. They ALL have the special privilege of being able to tell someone else what to do with their property.

              Immoral pig!

        2. Somebody didn’t go to college

        3. I agree with Tony. Republicans and right-wingers should just be killed.

          1. Conservative Christians should be eliminated!

  12. I really hate the gay couple in this story. Is that a base level of irony?

  13. What do millennials think about this?

    1. Completely in favor of putting the bakers in this article into re-education camps. And probably us too for thinking the bakers in the article have the right to do what they did here, regardless of our views on other subjects.

      1. Yeah, I see the constitution being amended for “hate” speech, crimes, acts, thoughts whatever in our lifetime.

        1. I see the constitution being amended for “hate” speech

          Which would make any semblance of freedom of speech disappear because the definition of “hate” will be completely subject to the sensibilities of the enforcers.

          1. Exactly

          2. Feature, not bug.

            Just like “disorderly conduct”.

        2. Already done. Another de facto SCOTUS amendment allowing penalties for hate speech and hate crimes.

          1. What penalties are there currently for just hate speech, not connected with a crime?

            Hate crime laws are bad, but they are pretty far from hate speech laws like they have in a lot of countries where you can be charged simply for saying something in public. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think that a good majority still understands that you have to protect unsavory speech if you want your own speech protected.

  14. The wedding cake says that it is not gay, just a little confused.

    1. Just showing a dude some respect.

  15. If somebody coerced you into driving the getaway car for a bank robbery, and you ran the motherfucker over when he emerged from the bank with the loot, would that be justifiable? I believe so.

    As soon as somebody says, “Do ‘X’ or I’ll sic the law on you” it’s the same as putting a gun to your head. What you do after that is reactive, and hence not a violation of the NAP.

  16. It seems that, last year, the Oregon Family Council qualified a religious-freedom measure for the ballot which would have protected people like these bakers, but they withdrew the measure based on what they considered a misleading title imposed on the measure by the government.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/mape…..xempt.html

  17. First Amendment? What’s that?

    Some archaic nonsense written by old, white, racists.

    But, on a serious not, it is the 13th amendment that first comes to mind when I read of a business being coerced into labor or face reprimand.

    1. If conscription for military service doesn’t violate the 13th, then this doesn’t. I happen to think that a draft does violate the plain meaning of the 13th, but courts don’t seem to agree.

  18. Instead of a making a dick-cake, I’d sell them one of my “Get Well Soon” cakes. That would be trolling.

    1. Make flowers decorations on the cake under where you stand the couple on top of the cake. But make the flowers orange and red so they look like flames.

  19. Just at what point, exactly, does this equate to involuntary servitude?

  20. Gay wedding cakes $151k. It’s a custom job.

  21. Guess they’ll just have to declare Bankruptcy, and apply for Welfare.
    Instead of “selling pencils”, they can do cupcakes.

  22. I would comment but I may “unlawfully communicate a future intention”.

  23. If they are truly Christians, then they must understand that they have no “right” to retaliate–not as Christians, anyway. God clearly reserved the right of retaliation to Himself.

  24. HA HA HA HA HA LMFAO!!! I hope this happens more and more!!!

  25. The bakery was obviously targeted with a new and improved socially acceptable form of bullying. I never heard of an interracial couple suing over wedding cakes, so welcome to the new government of petty authority. This shall be known as Americas “sanctimonious era.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.