Political Correctness

Brickbat: Let Them Eat Cake

|

G. dallorto

An Oregon judge has ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $135,000 to Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. The Kleins own a bakery and were found to have discriminated against the Bowman-Cryers after they refused to bake a cake for their wedding.

Advertisement

NEXT: $15 Minimum-Wage Movement Highlights Difference Between Progressives and Radicals

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. A 135 grand for hurt feeling? It’s impossible for me to care about many in the gay marriage push.

    1. But it was a very serious microaggression. Wedding goers could’ve died without cake from that particular bakery.

      1. Christian cakes, like the blood of christian babies, has powerful mojo and grants great blessings on those who consume them.

    2. The case is based on anti-discrimination law, which applies regardless of the legal status of gay marriage.

    3. I guess the more serious the punishment, the more likely people will comply?

  2. A hundred and thirty five grand. Because they wouldn’t bake them a cake. That they could drive down the street and buy a replacement for.

    At this point, I hope the judge and the Bowman-Cryers die in a fire. Slowly.

  3. “The important thing to realize is this,” she added, “This is real money that Aaron and Melissa are going to have to pay that otherwise would be used to pay their mortgage and feed their kids.”

    Breeders??? They’re just digging their hole deeper with statements like this.

    1. It’s kind of cute how they think anybody actually gives a fuck about their situation. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, amirite?

      1. So how long is the Judge going to prison for then?

      2. They committed a hate crime. They’re lucky we’re not sending them straight to Guantanamo Bay.

        1. That’s why Obama wants to make friends with the Castros, so we can expand the base to take on prisoners of a different kind.

  4. Cryers get what they want, apparently.

    1. Squeaky wheel gets the crease.

      1. Smelly bum gets the ram butter.

  5. “The Bowman-Cryers both testified to the emotional stress they attributed to their experience with Sweet Cakes as well as the glare of media attention that soon followed.”

    Media attention? Huh, I wonder who got the media involved? Also: FOUR days of testimony! Did the OJ trial last that long?

    1. In 1995, the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson was televised for 134 days.

      No, you were off by 130 days.

      1. I guess I need to work on my sarcasm technique.

        1. Try the Southern Hook Palm Technique.

  6. Rachel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her wife, Laurel Bowman-Cryer, $60,000

    So, even the LGBT community pays “woman” 80? on the dollar. Sexists!!!

  7. a Christian couple’s insistence that their religious beliefs against same-sex marriage trump a state law

    Let’s compromise and make it a 135k tax on not selling cakes to lesbians. Right Roberts?

    1. BTW, the April 23 Brickbat title would’ve worked for this one, too.

    2. This entire thread misses the whole point of this case. Baking a cake has nothing to do with Free Exercise. This is solely about public accomodation laws.

      Unless the Klein’s claim their faith requires them to be nasty to Gay people, your objections are nonsense. Willamette Weekly tested their resolve last year, and the Kleins had no objection to baking a divorce cake, or a celebration for a grant on stem cell research. This conclusively proves their objection is about “Gay” and not a traditional view of marriage.

      Unless you want to discuss repealing non-discrimination laws (which could be a Libertarian stance) you all are going hysterical for pointless reasons.

  8. 135k?! Please tell me these folks can appeal.

    I hope these two fuckers go bankrupt and get their come-uppance- and the judge too.

    See, it’s shit like this that doesn’t make me sympathize with their ’cause’.

    1. There’s the final ruling by the commissioner, and they can appeal to the Oregon court of appeals. They can also try to appeal to federal court by claiming a violation of 1st and 13th amendment protections.

      1. YAY!!! i’m not the only one pointing out the 13th Amendment issue at play here.

  9. I think if I owned a cake shop or whatever they’re called, I would put a sign up with a dictionary definition of marriage that states it’s between a man and a woman. Then when the inevitable gay activists come in demanding a cake, I would make it for them without incident. Just to waste their time.

    1. I’d bake them the shittiest cake. All crooked and tasteless.

      In all seriousness, I hope this family aren’t forced to close down.

      The price of a family losing their livelihood in a community is much greater than two asshole idiots with hurt feelings not getting a fucking, bloody effen cake. In fact, these two pos pretty much just extracted 135k. This is the overall arc to this story people seem to be missing in the comments of the article. And this thing equating gays to blacks is starting to irritate a little.

      I can just see the movie now: Scorned gay couple become ambulance chasers.

      1. They’ve already had to close their storefront and are now operating a reduced business from their home.

        1. Unfuckingbelievable.

          1. So begins the age of social justice.

  10. The retards might not rule the night, but they sure ruled that courtroom.

    1. I think the problem is that they locked eyes with ’em. Don;t lock eyes with ’em…

  11. “The amounts recommended by law judge Alan McCullough, coming after four days of testimony, are not final.”

    Four days of testimony? I bet the cops and prosecutors were sampling cakes as ‘evidence’. Munch munch.

  12. It’s not as if the bakery promised a cake and then, on the wedding day, chose not to follow through. Even IF that was what had happened, $135,000 is ridiculous.

  13. Does this mean Steve Crowder is going to be rich?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

  14. So I just realized Kizone Kaprow is a sock puppet. In the comments s/he is going off from a libertarian position but on here s/he rails against us.

    Now I have to wonder which one of you it is.

    1. Now I have to wonder which one of you it is.

      I have heard it is Mary.

  15. “Religious freedom is a fundamental part of America, and is written into our state’s constitution already. But those beliefs don’t entitle any of us to discriminate against others.”

    This stuff will never end, because no one can define “religious freedom” and no one can define “discrimination”. If “religious freedom” exists, then so does “non-religious freedom”. Do the beliefs of “non-religious freedom” entitle us to discriminate against others wearing “No shirt, no shoes”?

    1. Preferring to wear or not to wear certain apparel isn’t essential to ones being like preferences concerning a partner’s genitalia.

      *Meant to be read with with an Elena Kagan lisp

    2. discrimination now includes hurting the feelings of a protected class. And who knows what could offend the perpetually offended.

  16. Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer

    Shouldn’t at least one of those names be “Cryer-Bowman”? Otherwise, DISCRIMINATION!

  17. I’d piss in the cake batter…you know just saying

    1. Don’t do that! Come on!

  18. Rachel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her wife, Laurel Bowman-Cryer, $60,000

    Shouldn’t that be “Laurel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her wife, Rachel Bowman-Cryer, $60,000”?

  19. Fuck that judge an fuck anyone who thinks it is ok to coerce service from someone. That is all.

  20. Given that they’re willing to create such a big shitstorm over a cake, it’s hard for me to take them seriously when they claim that they’ve no intention to force ministers and churches to perform gay weddings. I think they’re going to go there sooner or later, on the grounds that ministers are licensed by the state.

    1. I think they’re going to go there sooner or later, on the grounds that ministers are licensed by the state.

      Giving ministers and priests special legal powers is itself a dumb idea. The US should do what other countries have been doing for a long time: ministers and priests hold the religious ceremonies, but the legally relevant marriage license is handed out by a government office. Incidentally, that also would get rid of your concerns.

    2. Or they’ll do it on the grounds that your religious freedom doesn’t grant you the right to discriminate against gay people. If you disagree, then they’ll take that to mean that you’d also agree with sharia law or forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist or allowing for human sacrifice, depending on the religion you wish to freely practice. The problem with the right using religion to fight back against anti-discrimination laws is that they can’t do it consistently.

      Just get to the point. It’s an involuntary servitude, 13th Amendment and a property rights issue.

  21. A win for the cause of slavery.

  22. Ten years ago, I would have thought it was impossible to make Christian fundamentalists look like sympathetic victims to average people.

    It’s sort of like how nobody felt sorry for the terrorists until the Bush Administration started torturing them.

    Violating people’s rights creates sympathy for people who never would have enjoyed such sympathy otherwise. It’s been that way since the Romans started throwing Christians to the lions.

    1. The liberals have no sympathy for Christians because they are more reliably a voting block for the Republicans. They’re sympathy for the gay community, which votes for them more reliably, trumps their sympathy for actual oppression in this case. They know on what side their bread is buttered. And that matters more to them than civil rights or justice.

  23. That’s utterly stupid. I generally oppose anti-discrimination laws because I think they are unnecessary. This “Christian” bakery already has been pretty much driven out of business by people making individual choices to cut ties with them. That’s all that’s needed.

  24. You missed where it gets worse.

    http://www.christianpost.com/n…..ng-138266/

    GoFundMe had a page to help them, then they pulled it down.

  25. It’s an administrative law judge, not a real judge. In effect, he makes recommendations to the labor dept of the state.

  26. It’s sad that stories like this is still considered news. What about positive news stories that we can be proud to tell our children?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.