MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Not Baking a Wedding Cake Leads to $135,000 Fine for Hurting Couple's Feelings

Devastating emotional wreckage from being told no by somebody.

Don't expect to see this place open up again.APThe final judgment has come in for Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Gresham, Oregon, bakers who had been found guilty of discriminating against a lesbian couple by refusing to bake them a wedding cake. They've been ordered to pay $135,000 to make up for the emotional damage they caused by telling this couple no. From the Associated Press and KATU in Oregon:

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal," the bureau's final order states.

"Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 says businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation - just as they cannot turn away customers because of their race, sex, diability, age, or religion.

It provides an exemption for religious organizations, schools, and serving alcohol to minors, but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The Kleins can appeal the ruling. They've already closed their store and now work out of their home by order only, meaning they're no longer a "public accommodation."

A couple of things I want to point out from this full order, readable here.

First of all, the state agency recommended, remarkably, that the Kleins also be required to pay for the emotional damages caused to the couple by media coverage and social media reactions to the case, because the Kleins appeared in the media a couple of times to defend and explain themselves. They wanted the bakers to have to pay further because of the emotional toll of conversations and media coverage over much of which the Kleins had absolutely no control. Fortunately, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled against additional damages. The $135,000 is based just on the result of the Kleins telling the couple they would not make them a wedding cake.

The second thing I want to alert folks to is the absurd way this order describes the emotional damage done to this couple. It's something to keep in mind when we talk about issues like hate speech laws and trigger warnings and whether it's appropriate to act as though the government is responsible for protecting people's feelings. Here's a chunk of the text, and there's a lot like it in the full order:

Respondent's denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn't supposed to be, and that she wasn't supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven. ... [She] interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life. She felt anger, intense sorrow, and shame. These are reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everybody else.

It was a cake. A cake! She has not been rejected from society. There is no actual argument or evidence presented that their ability to live their lives fully has been impaired by one rejection. In fact, they got a free cake from semi-famous television baker Duff Goldman out of the publicity the state wanted to fine the Kleins for. She sounds like she was driven nearly to suicide because she was rejected by a couple of bakers. I wonder what would have happened if these ladies stumbled across the Phelps family somewhere. They would end up in comas!

Much of the ruling is written in this vein, even though it also acknowledges at one point that testimony from one of the women was prone to exaggeration, and she gave testimony that was contradicted by others. They only considered her testimony when it was completely undisputed or corroborated by others.

In our food-themed August-September issue of Reason currently on the stands (and readable online by digital subscribers here), I explore the wedding cake battle and the legal issues involved. The state is legally in the right here as far as ruling the Kleins have broken public accommodation laws. Making a wedding cake in and of itself doesn't count as a form of speech under the law, and the law does not recognize the Kleins' belief that forcing them to make a cake is the same as offering a stamp of approval and going against their faith. I concluded:

What frequently gets ignored in these political battles—aside from the concept that people should have the right to associate (or not associate) with whomever they choose—is whether the law is the best tool to resolve these conflicts. Many wedding businesses are falling all over themselves to compete in this new and potentially profitable market. There is little indication that gay couples actually need the government to force resistant religious bakers to fire up their mixers in order to have the wedding of their dreams.

Photo Credit: AP

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.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    Yokeltarians, ASSEMBLE!

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    I self identify as Aloofatarian, thank you

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    My political philosophy is basically libertarianism, but with a Loofa-like exfoliating effect.

  • ||

    Abrasive, but fashionable.

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    you're the only one who really gets me, Jesse.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Pumice stones. Look, it's weird, but... it changes your whole outlook.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Pumice, the gayest of stones (to bring it back on topic). Also on topic, why don't they just bake a really disgusting cake? Rub one out into the batter while you are at it. In any case, if I was the gay couple, I would definitely not eat that cake.

  • OldOllie||

    I think they should just tell them, "By the way, your cake will include guest appearances at your wedding and reception by the Westboro Baptist Church. This is not optional."

  • Warrren||

    I have dynamic side-impact protection AND I'm hypoallergenic!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    HEY!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hitlertarians.

  • ||

    You realize this is well past "fashionably" late, no?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I always get hop-ons on my firsties. Time to give something back. Also, it's still the top post on the Hit & Run page, so it's still the latest comment thread. And I'm sleep posting.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    If enough yokeltarians assemble, can they summon Captain Mises with their magical rings?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Moving to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

    Oregon has officially gone full blown batshit retard. Twenty years ago it was a decent place.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    That won't save you from the fever of indentured servitude sweeping the nation. Not even with more cowbell.

  • ||

    You're welcome to come to Texas but be sure you get politically disinfected before you get here.

    People in Houston are just looking for people who can work and will do it.

  • John Galt||

    Wise move.

  • SusanM||

    RZZZZ!

  • JPyrate||

    Godspeed Migrant Log Chipper =)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ialhaxhr7iA

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Thx...I'm actually already in Montana, if one can call Missoula , Montana. It's sort of like a slice of Portland was beamed down these days, but the fishing's pretty good. Progs can't fuck up everything.

    Can you find "Eddie are You Kidding", JP? Favorite Zappa tune of mine....c'mon, Flo and Eddie, whats not too like.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Missoula is like Portland without all the beauty.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Not really, there is scenery that puts Hood to shame within a couple hours,unless you have a volcano fetish.

    Or a Rainier fetish.

    Tain't much beauty in Portland

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    To each his own, man. Personally, I like trees.

  • MarkLastname||

    Just wait until the bass start complaining to you're catching too many of them and not enough perch, strongly suggesting that you're racist against them and need correctibe sensitivity training. #basslivesmatter

    In case you didn't guess, I have no fucking clue what kind of fish live in Montana so I just assumed it's the same ones that live in the Great Lakes.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Trout, for the most part. Caught a lot of crappies and sunnies as a kid, warm water fish.

    Trout like cooler water.

  • MarkLastname||

    I caught some crappies too as a kid. Served me right for fishing near where the sewage gets dumped. Haha.

  • IceTrey||

    Are you crazy they just legalized weed!

  • SoCal Deathmarch||

    "Respondent's denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn't supposed to be, and that she wasn't supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven."

    They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Respondent's denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn't supposed to be, and that she wasn't supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven."
    Wow, talk about hysteria. If her prospective baker's refusal to bake her a cake did all that to her, then what she needs is a psychiatrist.

    More likely though, this is just the new safer version of jumping in front of traffic in order to get some nice insurance money.

  • Rhino||

    What she needs is a psychiatrist.

    Might be how they justify $135,000. Psychiatric help is expensive.

  • A special place in JW's Hell||

    Respondent's denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn't supposed to be, and that she wasn't supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven.

    Am I supposed to hear sad violins when I read that?

  • ||

    No you aren't supposed to hear sad violins.

    You're supposed to vote for higher taxes on productive people.

    After all, a record numbers of Americans are participating in the workforce.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....s_business

  • Win Bear||

    Note that we need to add around 150000 jobs each month just to keep up with population growth.

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    couldn't this same emotional response be had from a rejection at a bar?

  • JFree||

    If you're libertarian, you're supposed to congratulate yourself. After all, libertarians have been in a 40-year 'libertarian moment' with gays and have been right on the frontlines advocating 'equal treatment'. Well this is it

  • Win Bear||

    Well, yes, it is "equal treatment", given that religions are protected by the same kinds of anti-discrimination laws and show no willingness to give them up.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Imagine if the lesbians had committed internet psueicide. The survivors would have been set for life.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I like the direction this country is headed in.

  • Slammer||

    Crusty. Flo from Progressive ..would? I can't make up my mind

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The white pants are an allusion...all women look sexy in white pants (at least initially).

    Also, would.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    illusion! I blame the one beer I had.

  • Los Federales||

    Were you not wearing your date rape nail polish when you were sipping that Michelob?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am insulted that you would think I would drink a Michelob. Do I seem like a fatty? Michelob Ultra Light, bro.

  • Los Federales||

    Fatty or no fatty, if the light beer you're drinking isn't Natty Ice, I don't respect you.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Beast Ice beats Natty Ice

  • MarkLastname||

    The hell is wrong with you? Every time I see her on my youtube ads I want to hit her with a phone book.

    But I'm desperate, so I probably would too. But only if I can put a sock in her mouth and a paper bag over her head for the duration. Is that sexist of me?

  • ||

    almost 10 years on and Flo is still the Mendoza line

  • ||

    She felt anger, intense sorrow, and shame.

    As do we all when our Sugarfree fetish is discovered.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    JATNAS's depiction of SugarFree in hell in today's grieving bobcat was awesome.

  • LarryA||

    Why do "anger, intense sorrow, and shame" come out sounding like, "Halleluiah! Now we can sue them down to their shorts!"

  • ||

    It was a cake. A cake! She has not been rejected from society.

    The whole passage is beyond retarded, but not particularly surprising. It's pretty standard for complaints to end up absurdly florid even when not necessary. You should see psych workers' compensation claims.

  • KerryW||

    The bakers did clearly break the law, but I hope they win an appeal and get a religious exception. It's not like there aren't other bakers, most of whom are probably falling over each other for the couples' business.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    The law is clearly unfuckingconstitutional then.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If only that meant anything anymore.

  • thom||

    I'm holding my breath waiting for the ACLU to take up their case!

  • JFree||

    I'd recommend that you breathe once your face turns blue and you pass out.

  • Real American||

    not anymore. gays have a constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt.

  • Robert||

    Don't you think that if they'd gotten their cake, they'd've thrown it away & looked for another bakery to reject them? & kept going to bakeries until they found one that wouldn't bake their wedding cake?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Sure beats paying for the wedding out of their own pocket.

  • Juice||

    There's a subtle but clear difference between refusing to serve someone at all because they are gay and refusing to serve someone a cake for a gay wedding.

  • Real American||

    the bakers most certainly did not "clearly" break the law. they refused to bake a cake for a ceremony the disagree with on religious grounds. if the gays wanted a birthday cake, they would have gotten one, i.e., they weren't discriminated against on account of being gay.

  • Win Bear||

    The bakers did clearly break the law, but I hope they win an appeal and get a religious exception.

    Why? Under the same law, anybody can be forced to bake a cake for a Catholic or Southern Baptist wedding. Why should businesses be exempt from government coercion on religious grounds but not other grounds?

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    So tolerance = forcing others to take part in and celebrate a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs.

    Freedom of religion is dead. The only freedom left that has to do with religion is a person'so freedom from religion.

  • Win Bear||

    Freedom of religion is dead.

    Freedom of association is dead. Using religion as a pretext, people are just trying to carve out exeptions for themselves from the coercion everybody else has to suffer under.

  • Father of Two||

    When a law conflicts with the First Amendment, the First Amendment wins, period.

  • ||

    The best thing Donald Trump could do for this country if he had the country's best interest at heart would be to hire a high profile SJW artist and commission an artwork that was despicable to the SJW artist.

    That would be interesting,

  • ant1sthenes||

    Conservative, or some hilarious caricature thereof, isn't a protected class.

  • GreenLantern||

    ...or the Phelps family to go on a fundraising campaign consisting of suing gay bakers for refusing to make cakes that say "God Hates Fags" to serve at their prayer meetings.

  • tz||

    Now if they refused to do a cake with a Confederate Flag...

    If the Gay couple insisted on a gay wedding cake with confederate flag?

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    duh, they'd have to pay if they said no, and pay if they said yes. Capitalism is basically a scam and this is all a way to bring some kind of fairness to it.

  • JWW||

    No no no, If a customer requested a confederate flag cake and the actually made it, then they'd have to be fined and lose their bakery anyway.

  • EMD||

    They'd have to move the party or event to a museum.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. "

    I see little evidence that is true, though it is customary for the Progessive Theocracy to interpret every sleight against a person of some identity group as an attack on that identity group.

    Would they have refused to bake a graduation cake for this couple? A birthday cake?

    Would they have baked a cake for a gay wedding if someone straight had asked for it?

    They should have every right not to participate in a gay wedding. Not that they will. The Progressive Theocracy isn't interested in *their freedom*, they're interested in *forcing others into submission*.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    IIRC, in the case across the Columbia River with Arlene's Flowers, the gay couple were long-time customers who were assured that their business was indeed desired and they'd be delighted to see the gentlemen return - for an occasion which would not conflict with religious beliefs.

    By which to say, I think you have an excellent point.

  • Zaytsev damns the squirrels||

    What kind of asshole sues a business that they've patronized for years because of that business declining a gig.

    Which demonstrates that the gay activists are ultimately nothing more than douche-bags.

  • ||

    They griped about it on facebook, the story went viral and the state approached them to sue. They declined, so the state filed on their behalf. They were eventually (unfortunately) talked into the "rightness" of suing by third parties interested in making a hullaballoo of the case, but only if the value of the suit were kept minimal and the proceeds donated to charity.

    The. Horror.

  • Zaytsev damns the squirrels||

    If that is accurate, perhaps they should come to the business owner's defense wrt the size of the fine.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what the state's fine ended up being in the WA case, but considering they had said they didn't want it in the first place I doubt they had much sway.

    The suit ended up being $5,000 which I think contrasts nicely with the $135,000 the assholes in OR extorted.

  • Zaytsev damns the squirrels||

    I was conflating the two cases.

  • MarkLastname||

    I don't understand this. If this is civil law we're talking about, can't it only be filed by a them? The state can just file a civil suit on someone's behalf? How is this any different from criminal law then? Whenever you do something the state doesn't like that could violate civil code (which is probably anything) they can just "sue you on behalf of the would-be plaintiff" and fine you if they win in court. Somebody help me here, how is this not just an indirect way of using civil courts as though they were criminal courts?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    For these buggerist fundamentalists, it is all about the buggery.

  • XM||

    "Would they have baked a cake for a gay wedding if someone straight had asked for it?"

    If they're merely acting according to their faith, then yes.

    That's something the left doesn't understand. These bakers wouldn't deny a candy bar to some random gay person who walks into their store. They're objecting to an event. They might also object to serving an porn orgy or a Satanic cult.

    What would happen if prostitution becomes legal? Can a white woman decline to have sex with a black person? An overweight person? A client of the same sex? "It's MY body", the sex worker might insist. But according to left, if you CHOSE to use it for business, it should irrelevant?

  • EMD||

    Don't lawyers decline cases all the time? Graphic designers turn down gigs? I'm not sure how "public accommodation" is meant to work.

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    Well at least you can still offend most people for free.

  • fish||

    Fuck you!

    I feel better now....and it didn't cost a dime!

  • 0x90||

    I'm kind of thinking this tends toward being counterproductive. But then, that assumes the motives to be as advertised.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They were misusing The People's bakery.

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    They really were taking unfair advantage of all the historical lesbians who built the roads leading to their door, and invented yeast and stuff.

  • LarryA||

    "The fact that your post presumes that women know how to cook is a microaggression of epic proportions. Prepare to be sued for every pixel you own."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wrong context for yeast.

  • coloraDOOM||

    I've tried so hard to explain why a person should be able to turn down business for whatever reason. No one ever understands. They will nod along while I describe that terrible customer that they hate. But it's suddenly different when this is the situation. They will agree with "We shouldn't have to sell to X."
    The same person then accuses me of terrible things when I happen to replace X with "gay" or "Greek" or "Australian".

  • Zaytsev damns the squirrels||

    I think that it's because the socialists have done such a good job of obfuscating the reality that commercial transactions are mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges, and replacing that reality with a zero-sum perception. Such that a vendor declining an exchange are seen as depriving the customer of something that they have a 'right' to.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    But, but, but... some black people were discriminated against by government half a century ago so anyone who tries to use freedom of association is forever and always rayciss.

  • MarkLastname||

    Plenty of people also think it should be ok to send someone to jail for calling a woman a cunt. Few people seem to understand the distinction between what a person should do and what a person has a right to do, including what they have a right to do with their own property, and the fact that these categories do not overlap perfectly.

    I guess I would ask them how they feel if someone were giving away cakes, not selling them, say, from their home, but they refused to give any cakes to people who would use them in their gay wedding. Does a person have a right to be discriminatory in what they give? If so, why not in what they sell? What about in what they buy? Should it be illegal for a person to refuse to shop at stores owned by black people?

    It all comes down to the notion that a person should be allowed to give or sell their own property to whomever they want, for whatever ridiculous reason they want, because it is after all their property.

  • Win Bear||

    I've tried so hard to explain why a person should be able to turn down business for whatever reason.

    I agree with that. What I disagree with is the notion that people can be dictated to who to do business with, unless they seek refuge in religion. That is particularly offensive because, at the same time, religions themselves continue to support infringing on other people's rights to freedom of association.

    Either freedom of association is a generally accepted legal principle or it is not. Freedom of association with religious exemptions is not acceptable.

  • EMD||

    "religions themselves continue to support infringing on other people's rights to freedom of association."

    Elaborate.

  • John Galt||

    Something tells me that when lesbians refuse to bake a wedding cake for me and my horse I won't be getting effing penny or sympathy from anyone.

  • IceTrey||

    Zoophiliacs are not a protected class.

  • riak||

    Not yet. Wait for it...

  • lap83||

    Can horses vote? That should settle the question

  • gphx||

    Not that long ago people didn't want to serve black people. Either we have a Bill of Rights or we don't. Presently we do. The intent of it is admirable but, like any law, it requires governmental force to implement. Not sure there is a perfect answer. Some say the perfect answer is the one which leaves the most people unsatisfied with the result.

  • Zaytsev damns the squirrels||

    Bullshit,

    Jim Crow was enacted to prevent people from buying from and selling to black people in ways that racists objected to.

    It was fundamentally anti-market policies.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    The perfect answer is for slavers to fuck off.

  • Slammer||

    The Bill of Rights is a list of natural rights everyone has that the government is restricted from violating, it's not an open-ended listing of shit that you think you're entitled to. Especially other peoples property.

  • OneWingedShark||

    Not that long ago people didn't want to serve black people. Either we have a Bill of Rights or we don't. Presently we do.

    Bullshit.
    Amendment VIII -- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Either we have a Bill of Rights or we don't.

    The BoRs is a list of restrictions placed upon government, NOT private citizens.

    Fuck off slaver.

  • Gadianton||

    The perfect answer is that the merchant has the right to deny service for any reason -- even if it's "we don't serve your kind here." You then get to tell all your friends that the merchant refused you service, and advise them to take their business elsewhere.

  • ||

    34 comments and no one thought to say,

    Fuck those two assholes.

    /turns woodchipper on.

  • John Galt||

    You can afford to speak freely since the likelihood of extradition is practically nil.

    /turns on cotton candy machine with all safety guards in place.

  • JWatts||

    Michelle Obama warms up Marine Two, to personally haul you into jail and send you to prison for your unlicensed use of a sugar based confectionery appliance.

  • Osama bin Pimpin||

    These are the bookstore chicks from Portlandia right?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Every time you say the word unit or box or equipment I see a penis here, I feel a penis here, I feel a penis here."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society."

    So, the First Amendment is against the law in Oregon?

    Oh well, at least people in Oregon are finally getting the chance to try marijuana.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Human decency means a government gun to some poor baker's head?

    Oregon, be careful what you ask for . . . Ex-lax might look like a Hershey Bar, but that's it

  • OneWingedShark||

    That Oregon law is against Oregon's own Constitution:

    Art I, Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion.
    No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    "Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society."

    Every person except business owners.

  • JPyrate||

    Social Contract.

  • JPyrate||

    /sarc

  • MarkLastname||

    What in holy hell does it mean to have "the freedom to fully participate in society"???

    That is dangerously vague. Anyone can be forbidden from doing anything if all one has to do is contend that it inhibits someone from "fully participating in society."

    And since when is society something you participate in? I am astounded that this was not written by 7 year olds.

  • ||

    In how many states can this happen in?

  • fish||

    All 57!

  • ||

    I thought it's ONE now. As in, Obama's post-racial, enlightened, and benign rule of one.

  • Robert||

    The State of Pickle, the State of Bean, the State of Ketchup, the State of Soup, the State of Mustard....

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Jesus Christ, what a spoiled, whining, brat.

    The couple gets to marry. Have they lost what a big deal THAT is?

    As for the frigging cake - in the immortal words of Mick Jagger: you can't always get what you want.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    That would be a great 1st dance song for this couple's wedding: "You can't always get what you want . . . "

  • Hamster of Doom||

    But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get $135,000.

  • PapayaSF||

  • PapayaSF||

  • IceTrey||

    She just got hired at the college I went to! It was on Fox.

  • Aloysious||

    All us whiteys, or just Warty?

  • Ecoli||

    Fuck the gays. They have lost my support. Fuck 'em. Back in the fucking closet. They want war, they got it.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    It's almost like jesse himself put a gun to your head and forced you to bake a cake.

  • ||

    Full disclosure: I put a gun to MJGreen's head to make that comment.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Full disclosure: I just subpoenaed LBC's records.

  • Technomad||

    Hear, hear! This sort of thing irritates me on a level beyond rage. If these asshats had done this to a business owned or run by people I cared about, I might just have roused out of my torpor and done something _drastic._

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Bought a cake from them? Worn a tee shirt saying "Yeah, fuck that guy"? Watched bootlegged Dukes of Hazzard and tried to make that Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrain noise?

    I admit to a certain curiosity. How drastic we talking here?

  • ||

    He seems to indicate down below that he'd make a list on the internet about how gays remember everything anything anybody has done wrong.

    Apparently it's ok to hold a grudge about grudge holding, but not to hold grudges about other things. Or something. I have trouble reading Asshole-ese when I'm a few G&Ts; deep.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    This Brylcreem-wearing fool once told me that pickle juice does wonders for hangovers. He probably would put pickle juice in his pea-based guac if someone suggested it, though.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    pea-based guac

    WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?!?!?!

  • ||

    DON'T ASK

    The NYT has finally gone too far, HM...too far.

    *wretches in corner, weeping hysterically*

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's shit like this that radicalizes me.

  • ||

    Best response

    David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog Jul 1

    "Jazz up your authentic New York-style supermarket bagels with Hershey's Kisses" - El Paso
    Times

    HT someone from PM Links or maybe another thread. I'm making Sweating Gin proud this evening.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    I think that was me. So I get credit for the whole tweet, right?

  • ||

    I think that's how it works.

  • RAHeinlein||

    Seriously, two days in a row for the pea-based guac posts - is there some national movement I don't know about?

  • ||

    They have lost my support.

    Belief that "the gays" ever had your support: 0

    But thanks so much for ascribing collective guilt to all of us for the actions of some. You're truly an enlightened being, rugged individualist and, I'm sure, all around delightful person.

  • JPyrate||

    You know jesse as a straight person I find it infuriating being stuck between these two sets of assclowns. I can't imagine being gay, and being stuck between these two sets of assclowns.

  • ||

    Not being able to tell one's allies from one's enemies keeps one on one's toes at least.

  • JPyrate||

    That's something that you can use to your advantage. I did Ad Hom Tony into coming out. That was a calculated move. Yeah use that to your advantage.

  • ||

    How long have you been commenting? Tony has been unabashedly gay since before I started commenting here.

  • JPyrate||

    I think two or three years. I just remember messing with him, and him telling everyone he was gay.

  • ||

    Hmm. I hate to break it to you, but he was definitely already out. Although he may have just switched back to being Tony after he was T O N Y for a long time.

  • JPyrate||

    Damn. And I thought I thought I had an effect. =D

  • MarkLastname||

    Haha, I just realized I'll never be able to play 'The Ballad of Gay Tony' again without Tony coming to mind.

  • PapayaSF||

    This is just one of the problems with identity politics. Some [race/gender identity] claims to speak for all people of [race/gender identity], at least on [race/gender identity] issues. Then when someone responds on those [race/gender identity] terms, jesse gets lumped in with the political group claiming to represent [race/gender identity], instead of being seen as an individual of [race/gender identity].

    I'm coming to think that the core foundation of modern leftism is no longer economics, but identity politics. That's the monster libertarians (and conservatives) must slay. But how?

  • ||

    It might be easier if they, I dunno, stopped participating in it in really fundamental ways.

  • JPyrate||

  • ||

    More specifically, I think you're right that identity politics has become a core driver (maybe not THE core driver) for the left, conservatives are perfectly happy to construct a narrative of put upon Christians in a sea of liberalism which is identical to the structures of liberal identity politics. At least some conservatives and libertarians seem to have, as a habit of mind, the collectivization that drives identity politics as you can see up and down the thread.

  • JPyrate||

    Here's the thing. Both "Left' and "Right" Authoritarianism uses identity politics to make laws. Just do not obey the law, and do not get caught.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8KJj-zlX04

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    oh, god, soul coughing.

    I met that guy in Nashville during his bad phase. He seemed to have self selected himself as the caretaker of the graveyard of Bad White Crossover Artists. I think the nicest thing that can be said about them is that they were NOT 'G Love and Special Sauce'

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Other than free shit it's certainly the core driver of the left.

  • Zaytsev damns the squirrels||

    So the way to beat the left's identity politics bullshit is to completely disarm?

    Sound's about as retarded as Ghandi's advice to the British in 1940.

  • PapayaSF||

    Zaytsev has a point. The problem is, jesse, that this is a version of Trotsky's observation: "You may not be interested in identity politics culture war, but identity politics culture war is interested in you." Once one side has put its case in with-us-or-against-us collective terms, it's hard to impossible to simply reject or ignore those terms. Not that promoting individualism is wrong, but it's not exactly wrong for Christians to use the language and terms of the people attacking them and turn it around.

  • ||

    it's not exactly wrong for Christians to use the language and terms of the people attacking them and turn it around.

    Which brings us back to me never being sure of who my allies and enemies are, and possibly my intense dislike for "THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS"

  • Tony||

    Let's not pretend there's an equivalence. Nobody, not by a macroscopic fraction, has the persecution complex of conservative Christians. That is what this entire thing is about. Gays actually lacked rights. Christians are whining about their eroding lack of a right to exclude gays from society. There is a substantive difference between the groups each side of this debate carries water for. One is actual persecuted minorities, and the other is the overwhelmingly dominant demographic in this country. The conservative/libertarian continuum should just be honest and say they are wholeheartedly the champions of the already powerful--that's what the words conservative and libertarian pretty much mean.

  • MarkLastname||

    Ugh. None of this, Tony, is about the powerful and the powerless. For starters', individuals have power, or groups of individuals, not races and genders or whatever. So stop pretending that belonging to some demographic category makes one a 'member of the powerful' or a member of the powerless.

    And the law does not exist to expropriate the people you call the powerful and uplift the ones you think are powerless. Laws don't exist to fuck over the people who don't like you. They exist to guarantee the rights of individuals of all kinds regardless of whatever demographics they belong to.

    All your equivocating just helps you ignore the fact that you don't really believe in the idea of rights. You don't want to live in a society where people's rights aren't contingent upon some incidental feature of theirs. No, you seem to want revenge. You always seem to want to preserve the right to discriminate against classes of people designated as perpetrators, as though doing so will rectify some historical wrongdoing, real or imagined. In the end though, you're just swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction, and I won't feel sorry for you when it swings back in yours. You're exactly the same as your "oppressors" Tony, don't ever forget that. You,like them, are incapable of regarding people as individuals. Why else would you revel seeing people get screwed over because someone similar to them did something bad somewhere some time?

  • Tony||

    So stop pretending that belonging to some demographic category makes one a 'member of the powerful' or a member of the powerless.

    I didn't make it this way. The oppressors did. They said "you have dark skin, therefore you can't go into any restaurants or get a decent job." Bitch at them about the fact that being born into a category automatically means you have some privileges or lack thereof. It's obviously true; only a member of every privileged demographic (as 90% of libertarians are) could possible be so absurdly blind to this fact.

    You always seem to want to preserve the right to discriminate against classes of people designated as perpetrators

    How is this so? The Christians already have federal law protecting them from discrimination, and I'm OK with that. We can argue the merits of antidiscrimination law, but if we are going to include some groups then I think it's only right to include sexual orientation. Excluding them while keeping the rest of the protections on the books is seriously problematic.

  • MarkLastname||

    "They said "you have dark skin, therefore you can't go into any restaurants or get a decent job.""
    It really says a lot about the quality of your argument that you need to go back 50 years in time to have a point. A dark skinned man is currently the most powerful person in the world, and he is an enthusiastic supporter of "reverse" racism.

    "The Christians already have federal law protecting them from discrimination"
    If that law actually mattered, then this thread wouldn't exist and these bakers wouldn't be getting fleeced because of their beliefs.

    And btw, I seriously doubt you would come to my defense if I sued Curves for refusing to let me in because I'm a male. I also sincerely doubt you're hoping for the Supreme Court to strike down "reverse" racism in their upcoming decision. You have a pattern Tony and it is quite predictable. You pretty clearly rights of us perpetrator races or classes as an impediment to you victims getting your "just" compensation.

    And btw, my ancestors came over here on a cargo ship where they worked in factories for generations before saving up enough through extreme self-discipline to send a generation (my parents) to college. People who call that privilege are the ones who are blind. Perhaps because it helps them blame away their own failures in life on people they've never even met.

  • Zaytsev damns the squirrels||

    The conservative/libertarian continuum should just be honest and say they are wholeheartedly the champions of the already powerful--

    Yep, no one is as powerful in the US today as observant Christiand florists and bakers.

    Those fuckers run the world.

  • MarkLastname||

    It's common knowledge that the Christian Florists' Union has more clout than the AFL.

  • EMD||

    C'mon. It's not that bad of a movie. Especially when Martin Mull finds out he's actually adopted. Holy Shit! Didn't see that one coming!

  • JPyrate||

    For your transgression I sentence you to ten hours of the song that never ends. may God have mercy on you soul.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMJHjo6bnHk

  • JPyrate||

    You make war on the gays you keep in your closet ?

    What kind of sick fuck are you ?

  • MarkLastname||

    "Fuck the gays"
    I've tried, turned out it wasn't my thing, just a prescription mix up.

  • Win Bear||

    Fuck the gays. They have lost my support.

    You're collectivizing like a champion progressive, fascist, or communist.

  • JPyrate||

    THOSE MEAN PEOPLE WON'T BAKE ME A CAKE !!!!

    WAAHHHHHH !!!!!!!

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation.

    No it is not. Is this ever explained or defended, or is it just asserted as true?

    Perhaps the first thing a baker should do when someone asks for a wedding cake is ask, "Do you want a cup of coffee?" Then you have proof that you're willing to serve someone regardless of their sexual orientation.

  • JPyrate||

    ^^ Smart cookie. =)

  • Tejicano||

    As per the SJW Codebook section 12 paragraph 2b it is implicitly self-evident.

  • JPyrate||

    Honestly that's standard hospitality across the world.

  • OneWingedShark||

    Quick question: How can this judgement not run afoul of the 8th Amendment? (Assuming that the 8th is binding on the states.)

    Other questions:
    (1) How can this judgment be compliant with Oregon's own Constitution which in Art I, Section 16, says:
    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.

    (2) How can the law these people were prosecuted persecuted under be legitimate? Oregon's own Constitution, in Art I, Section 3 says:
    No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

    (3) Does anyone in the judiciary even read the Constitutions under which their Courts are established and commissioned any more?

  • Scott S.||

    Because it's not a criminal case. They take great pains to say so. It's an administrative fine. Ta-da! (Yes, it's terrible, but I'm just explaining).

  • OneWingedShark||

    But the 8th Amendment (and Art I, Sec 16) lay no qualifications as to the where the fine originates; moreover, if the issue is administrative then there is no jurisdiction because these citizens are not under the administration of said agency or, more plainly, they have no legitimate authority -- and that means that an actual federal crime.

    Actually, scratch that. -- In any case whatsoever it's violative of 18 USC 241.

  • Technomad||

    Between cases like this, the gays' driving Brendan Eich out of Mozilla for daring to disagree about "gay" "marriage," the way they fought like furies to keep their damn old bath houses open during the first big blast of the AIDS epidemic, and their willingness to drive anybody who has opinions they don't like out of business or employment (Orson Scott Card, for example) I've become pretty hostile to organized gays.

    If all they wanted was to be left alone, I'd have to support them, but the second they get the chance, they go on a mad crusade to repay every slight they ever suffered or heard about another gay suffering, no matter how long ago. Next thing, they'll be digging the Marquess of Queensbury's body up and putting him on trial for homophobia in the first degree and being mean to Oscar Wilde.

  • PapayaSF||

    If you really want to get their dander up, tell them that Matthew Shepard was really killed over a drug deal. They refuse to believe that.

  • Tony||

    *They*?

    What a bunch of cousinfucking rubes you are.

  • PapayaSF||

    Tony is disturbed by gender-neutral collective pronouns.

  • Tony||

    So is now a good time to tell you that Thomas Jefferson owned people and forced them to do free labor for him? He has cities named after him, not mere legislation.

  • MarkLastname||

    Why do you care? The government hadn't given them rights yet, so they didn't have any to violate, and therefore he didn't violate anyone's rights, right? Isn't that what you believe? Rights are state granted, so since slavery was legal, no harm no foul, eh?

  • Tony||

    Christ fuck you people cannot be this dense. This is a mind-numbingly simple is-out distinction. Slaves didn't have rights, but they should have. My intellectual forebears required a massively destructive war to secure those rights because the slavers were that invested in owning people. What did yours do? Stand on the street corner and comfort slaves with the proclamation that, despite not being able to practice any liberty, they actually had rights, somewhere out there in the ether But let's not kid ourselves, we know which side your intellectual forebears were on. *Cough* property rights.

  • Tony||

    is-ought*

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    But let's not kid ourselves, we know which side your intellectual forebears were on. *Cough* property rights.

    Nope. Unalienable rights. Granted by a power higher than government.

  • Brian||

    Fail.

  • MarkLastname||

    "My intellectual forebears"
    Who would they be? Abolitionist Christian activists?

    "What did yours do?"
    My forbears were serfs (slaves) in Europe. Some white privilege.

    "*Cough* property rights."
    Tell me Tony, what's the word for forcing someone against their will upon threat of punishment to do give you their labor (like, say, bake you a cake?)? What's that word again Tony? Yeah, we know who your intellectual forebears were; incidentally they voted for the same party you do.

  • MarkLastname||

    A lesson as old as time: no group wants equality with all the other groups. All they want is more. More more more. No one ever stops at just having equal rights. And why should they?

    It's unfortunate that it's controversial to note that the "oppressed" groups are just as selfish and bigoted as the "oppressor" groups, because those are just human features, not "oppressor" features; but when we make it socially acceptable for some specific group of people to be assholes in some respect, it should be no surprise that many should take full advantage of the leeway. I mean, you take as much as you can get away with, right?

  • AlgerHiss||

    “If all they wanted was to be left alone...”

    That has been the biggest lie in all of this: We just want to be left alone.

    A minority of the “lgbt” crowd ascribes to that notion. The others are in it, not for anything having to do with human sexual pleasure, but for reasons of non-conformity and exhibitionism.

    If tomorrow, heterosexuality was deemed a minority, scads of the current “lgbt” crowd would all of a sudden be as hetero as can be.

  • Win Bear||

    If all they wanted was to be left alone, I'd have to support them, but the second they get the chance, they go on a mad crusade to repay every slight they ever suffered or heard about another gay suffering, no matter how long ago.

    Yes, and religious organizations are on a "mad crusade" to impose their social views through law, obtain government privileges, get exemption from rules that apply to everybody else, and seek large government handouts.

    Many churches and religious organizations hate libertarianism and all it stands for; the only thing they like to do with libertarianism is to justify special exemptions from government coercion that everybody else has to suffer under.

    So, while I don't agree with most of the political objectives of "organized gays" (and personally couldn't care less about SSM either way), when gay organizations and churches battle, I say: hand me the popcorn, this ought to be fun to watch.

  • PapayaSF||

    How the hell can we combat this sort of dangerous nonsense when we don't even have a vocabulary for it? That side has "civil rights" "pro-love" and "being against hate." What's the snappy libertarian (or conservative) comeback? "Religious freedom"? "No, it's a conflict of rights, and in this case...."?

    Somehow the left has won the branding war on a lot of issues, and the true believers have their mantras which they propagate and use to round up and the superficial and/or dimwitted low-info types.

    Gay rights has gone from a legitimate "Just leave me alone" cause to "You must approve of me!" semi-totalitarian bullshit. How can we say that in a simple way?

  • Tejicano||

    The problem you are outlining is the fact that they have been allowed to pretend these issues are things which they are not.

    This was never a civil rights issue in any shape or form yet they have gotten away with portraying it as if that were so. The whole discussion got pushed down the wrong track and ended up with the wrong label. Nobody with a high enough profile to enlighten the discussion with the truth was willing to risk that profile by getting in the way of the narrative.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The best thing that can be done in my view is to simply let these imbeciles destroy themselves by overreaching, which they inevitably will do. At some point they're going to target the wrong person or go too far in punishing someone and the whole thing will come crashing down due to the lawsuits in Federal court.

    With regard to convincing people, I don't attempt to change the parameters of the debate since it is very easy to win the debate as they present. Yes, bigotry is bad. But the issue here isn't bigotry, it is whether or not you have the right to someone else's labor. This argument actually does connect with a lot of people who aren't hardcore progs because it is easy to imagine situations where someone you like might get fucked over by not respecting this principle.

  • Robert||

    I don't think most people care because they think, shit, you're in business, just serve the customer! & the 1st thing that'll come to mind was the last time they got bad service.

  • Tony||

    It's conflicting rights claims, so both are the issue. The right to someone else's labor as you put it vs. the right to be free from discrimination in this context. Whichever claim gets turned into law is the one that gets government goons enforcing it. Neither is smaller government. You're just picking a side.

  • Tony||

    I mean the right not to labor for someone else, I guess.

  • MarkLastname||

    Um, the side that doesn't force anyone to do something on pain of government-orchestrated punishment is clearly the smaller government side. Obviously.

    Yes, we're picking a side. The right side. The side that acknowledges the right of a person to sell or distribute his or her own property as he or she pleases. You have a right to discriminate for any reason, however asinine. You can only buy goods from stores owned by whites, or by gays. You can refuse to enter cities with large hispanic populations or drive through states with Republican governors. You have a right to discriminate against Asians by refusing to greet them when see them in public. You have a right to discriminate, and no one has a right not to be discriminated against. The right side is the side that doesn't draw out a special exemption for the action of selling goods and services.

    Sorry, but this is just the way it is. Mean people have rights too, including the right to be mean. If you can't live with that fact, then that's your problem.

  • Tony||

    In private life, this is all true. For good reasons our law treats businesses that serve the public a little differently. If there hadn't been systematic bigotry against certain groups, such laws wouldn't have been necessary.

    But you're not picking the side of no-government light vs. big-government darkness. You require government goons every bit as much as the plaintiffs here do. It's just that yours will be dragging blacks and gays from businesses in a rather unseemly and fascist manner. That's what you choose, you just said so.

  • MarkLastname||

    "For good reasons our law treats businesses that serve the public a little differently."
    No, those are not good reasons. The distinction is baseless. If I want to sell goods out of the privacy of my home to people I invite into my home, how is that the business of the public?

    And that systematic bigotry, in case you forgot, was top-down: the Jim Crow Laws. Laws, note that word. Laws. Many private businesses actively fought to get rid of or circumvent them, not even necessarily out of the goodness of their hearts, but for their own self interest, illustrating once again the virtue of markets. Note that were plenty of places where anti-discrimination laws did not exist where discrimination was not widely practiced.

    "It's just that yours will be dragging blacks and gays from businesses.."
    And whites and straights too. But of course that's not an issue with you since on'y "protected classes" have rights.

    And if you read the article, you'd note that we're not even talking about dragging anyone anywhere; we're talking about forcing the owner of the fucking owner of the business to bake a cake for someone for whom he doesn't want to. Sounds pretty fascist to me.

  • John||

    So leaving people the fuck alone is government coercion? Tony pleasing stop sodomizing the language

  • Tony||

    Business owners don't want to be left the fuck alone, they want customers. If a gay customer comes in and refuses to leave when told their kind aren't served here, what happens? Armed government goons show up and expel them. "Well that's different somehow!"

  • MarkLastname||

    So someone breaks into your house and insists on staying there (hell, maybe they insist that you make them a sandwich too), and you call the police.

    You're on the side that says the police should not only not escort the uninvited guest off your property, but that they should fine you 135,000 for refusing to make the guy a sandwich. Yeah, you're clearly on the reasonable side.

    And to pre-empt your rebuttal, no, businesses are not different from homes. Some people run businesses out of their homes (of course you government cheer-leaders may endorse regulations to put an end to that for some reason). You just cannot get around the idea that whether you call it your house or your restaurant or you dojo or your whatever the fuck, it's still yours; you can refuse to serve people who aren't wearing shoes if you please. That does not violate the rights of the shoeless. Just as a Japanese person requiring you to take your shoes off before going inside their home or restaurant does not violate the rights of the shoefull.

  • Tony||

    You must approve of the existence of gay people and any other class of people. Unless you're a Nazi, then the rules are a little different.

    If you're bitching about not being invited to the cool parties because you happen to be a homophobic asshole, welcome to freedom of association.

  • JPyrate||

  • PapayaSF||

    Tony, you ignorant slut, I live in San Francisco and have had gay friends and co-workers and bosses for longer than you've been alive. I can approve or disapprove of anyone I want.

  • Tony||

    Please, only on an individual basis.

  • MarkLastname||

    Which is the only basis that matters.

  • JPyrate||

    "How the hell can we combat this sort of dangerous nonsense when we don't even have a vocabulary for it? "

    Voluntary Association.

  • PapayaSF||

    Good, though not as catchy as "civil rights." And perhaps "vocabulary" is not what I mean. I mean "slogan" or "catchy phrase."

  • Gadianton||

    "Fuck off, slaver." ?

  • PapayaSF||

    Heh, I like that one, but it's a bit too contentious for widespread use in the way I'm looking for. We need something more upbeat and friendly.

  • Win Bear||

    The problem isn't with championing voluntary association, it's with championing it selectively and inconsistently.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Freedom, liberty, conscience, consent.

  • PapayaSF||

    Good words, but need to be in a good slogan.

  • OneWingedShark||

    How the hell can we combat this sort of dangerous nonsense when we don't even have a vocabulary for it? That side has "civil rights" "pro-love" and "being against hate." What's the snappy libertarian (or conservative) comeback? "Religious freedom"? "No, it's a conflict of rights, and in this case...."?

    We have a term for this: involuntary servitude and slavery.
    It's quite simple: these businesses are being forced to serve involuntarily.

  • PapayaSF||

    I think those terms are problematic, because they are too hyperbolic. They are true on a certain level, but they turn off people and are easy to dismiss. "Oh, come one, nobody is in chains picking cotton, they're just baking a cake like they normally do!"

  • SQRLSY One||

    I for one, ***AM*** in chains picking cotton! All is For the Hive... I pick cotton till my fingers bleed, just trying to slate the insatiable thirst of Government Almighty, which sucks the blood off of my bleeding fingers! Government Almighty doesn't even need or want my cotton, they just suck my bloody fingers, is all... I wish they'd suck something else!

  • John||

    The Muslims have a way. They would have beheaded the gay couple That is a bit drastic but as no gay couple will ever sue a Muslim owned business, it is effective.

  • Tony||

    You are how fascism happens John. Evil mean-spirited punching-down right-wing propaganda turns you into an intolerant asshole to the extent that you entertain notions of exterminating minority populations. For your own good and the good of your loved ones, for the love of God turn off Fox News and Breitbart.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    You are how fascism happens John.

    Project much?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    However, you did not answer the content of his post. I'm wondering how the grievance industry would handle the "Muslim refusing to bake gay wedding cake"? Two protected groups with special privileges gotta be a Prog-Fascio conundrum somewhere in there.

  • R C Dean||

    They would consult with the Office of Intersectionality, which would apply today's, er, this minute's, intersectionality algorithm to determine who is the ubermensch, and who is the untermensch in this particular clash of victim privilege.

  • Tony||

    The thing about being a suspect minority class is you don't tend to have the luxury of throwing your weight around. Unlike the Christians, who have just now been told to take their stone monument off my capitol lawn, essentially an attempt by them to mark their territory.

  • Win Bear||

    "Religious freedom"?

    "Religious freedom" on the right is hypocritical; what it means is "freedom from government coercion for me, but not for thee".

    Gay rights has gone from a legitimate "Just leave me alone" cause to "You must approve of me!"

    How is that substantially different from religious anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations and employment?

    How the hell can we combat this sort of dangerous nonsense

    We can take a principled libertarian stance, which is to call for a restoration of all freedom of association, instead of getting dragged into a pissing contest between religious conservatives and social justice warriors over whose restrictions on freedom of association are more righteous and more valuable to society.

  • Woodchip W/ Extreme Prejudice||

    Holy shit, how hard is it find a different bakery? There's the proof that this isn't about getting a godamn cake made it's about bludgeoning everyone who doesn't kowtow to their ostentatious crusade

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Pretty much.....and while I agree teh gayz have the exact contract rights as I do (including marriage and yeah the state should get the fuck out of the marriage bidness), being pricks or state assclowns being pricks on your behalf isn't going to win many friends. Most people I know aren't all that worked up about the issue, but they tend not to like pushy people or idiotic state agencies shoving shit down people's throats. There is certainly the risk of a backlash if the progs keep pushing.

    The law is now a done deal on this issue, let's all just move on and get back to living and not fucking with people we don't share views with just to be assholes. Life would become more pleasant.

  • John||

    It is not. But this has never been about marriage. Forced acceptance has always been the end game. These people are fascist.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Acceptance is not the end-game. The end-game is celebration, admiration, and nurturance.

  • Win Bear||

    Holy shit, how hard is it find a different bakery?

    If you're going to take that approach, you might as well ask: "Holy shit, how hard is it to bake a cake?"

    it's about bludgeoning everyone who doesn't kowtow to their ostentatious crusade

    There are two ostentatious crusades going on here: the ostentatious crusade of the gay couple and the ostentatious crusade of the "Christian" baker.

    Neither of these groups gives a fuck about individual liberties or freedom of association; both the gay couple and the bakers want their privileges and lifestyle validated by the state, and that's why they are making such a big deal out of it.

  • Tacos Los Gatos||

    Progressive governments are completely out of control. Actual, *real* crimes don't draw this kind of penalty. Anti-discrimination laws need to be repealed post-haste, because there is absolutely no rational justification for them to exist.

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    RAYCISS!!!1!1! RAYCISS! RAYCISS! RAYCISS!!1!

    /Tony

  • Tony||

    So we're obsessing over one of the remaining innate human traits that can be discriminated against in many states (but not Oregon, hence the breaking of the law here). The alleged privilege of freedom from discrimination, of course, already applies to Christians. The gays could not, in any state, refuse to bake a cake for a Christian on the basis of his Christianness. Of course surely the Christians don't sue at the same staggering rate of like two cases.

    I wonder, can a gay-owned business get an exemption from laws based on its gayness? Oh no, that's just the Christians again.

  • JPyrate||

    Now I understand who you are. =)

  • Tony||

    And who the fuck might you be?

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

  • Tony||

    So an obviously inebriated link to youtube that I will never click...

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Holy shit, the skwerlz are up late tonight.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Never post at the 2AM witching hour.

    *All times eastern

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey!!

  • ||

    Nah, you'll understand Tony when you show up in a thread late and he's said something charming and insightful and you realize that he's actually very clever and just drops bread crumbs on the commenters and watches them churn the water reacting to them most of the time.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    He's a lying sack of shit and not really very clever, jesse.

  • ||

    How different would his commenting be if he were just fucking with you to work you into a lather for his own amusement without putting much effort in?

  • JPyrate||

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You don't understand freedom of association, you mendacious cunt. Certainly the gay business should have the right to trade with whoever they choose. Just like Xians, dumb fuck, no difference.

  • Tony||

    As long as we are debating the merits of antidiscrimination law, and not which of us owns the definition of freedom, I'm good.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You don't believe in freedom.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey Migrant Log Chipper,

    Can you do me a favor, please? I have been away on vacation, and I come back to Reason comments, and all of a sudden there's all these wood-chipper-related posting-names... I don't get it. Tried to Google it, no luck... What's with all the wood-chipping? Do please tell? I sure hope it's not about chipping my woodie!

    Thanks! -SQRLSY One

  • RAHeinlein||

    SQRLYSY One,

    Link to this story on Popehat which show the comments posted on Reason (subject of Fed Grand Jury Subpoenas) - this will demonstrate origin of Woodchipper. Go to Nick/Matt's piece here on Reason for the full story.

    http://popehat.com/2015/06/08/.....eason-com/

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hi RA,

    Thanks Much for the edumafication! … Power pigs should die, and be fried up for bacon! Notice I am not threatening to fry them up for bacon, I am just saying that I am hungry… Pig-meat to the people!

  • MarkLastname||

    Anti-discrimination law has no merits, so not much to debate.

  • Tony||

    No I'm right! QED.

  • MarkLastname||

    Funny since that's basically your argument: "I can force you to do do stuff for me because what you're doing is "public life.""

    Maybe we need laws saying people can't be Christian or Republican or adulterous when they're walking across teh roadz, because that's 'public life.'

    The new fascism: just call it 'public life' and you can make people do whatever you want. Oh wait, that's just the old fascism. "National freedom" supersedes "individual freedom." Who was it that thought that back in the 20s and 30s?

  • Win Bear||

    You don't understand freedom of association, you mendacious cunt. Certainly the gay business should have the right to trade with whoever they choose.

    But that's not the law of the land. The law of the land used to be that gay businesses couldn't discriminate based on religion, but religious businesses could discriminate based on sexual orientation. Now the groups are on equal terms under the law, and can infringe on each other's rights to freedom of association equally.

    As far as freedom of association is concerned, nothing much has changed: coercive government infringed on it before, and it infringes on it now, it's just that the groups who receive government-granted privileges have changed slightly.

  • yet another dave||

    I bet the appeal lasts longer than the marrage...

  • JPyrate||

    =D

  • yet another dave||

    Oh, and when the fuck did bakers become the evil minion that needs to be made an example of? Are there no other bakeries in Oregon... perchance a gay one? What kind of asshole puts Bob and Mary out of business because they wouldn't decorate a cake the way they wanted? What the hell is wrong with these people? What is wrong with the judge? Whats wrong with the jury? Does anyone else ask these questions? Is it just me and the judge???

    A

  • SQRLSY One||

    Mass mental illness means that none of us can hear your questions... Blah-ya-blah-utter-sputter-ya-ya, I cannot hear you... Questions make us think, and we don't wanna.... Thinking might make us question our own sanity, and our sanity is a Sacred Assumption...

  • JPyrate||

  • EEK_42||

    My hope is that "these people" spend all of their ill gained money on cake and die of type 2 diabetes. But it's their choice.

  • riak||

    " Making a wedding cake in and of itself doesn't count as a form of speech under the law, and the law does not recognize the Kleins' belief that forcing them to make a cake is the same as offering a stamp of approval and going against their faith. "

    Then the law is absolutely wrong. If a baker - say Walmart - can refuse to bake a cake with a Confederate flag on it because they disagree with the perceived signification of said flag, then cakes can be considered speech. So therefore, by forcing a baker to bake a cake for an event they disagree with is forcing them to offer tacit approval of that event.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I think the argumentation is that the person creating the flag cake is literally engaging in speech (creating a picture, or writing). The wedding cake is just a pretty cake, the baker is opposing how it will be used.

    The right solution for concerned Christians is probably just to stop selling "wedding" cakes, by which I mean just sell cakes and don't ask or take any responsibility for the circumstances under which a person will eat it, and if delivery is required, leave that to a non-religious intermediary. Someone wants to stick bride and/or groom decorations on, they should be able to handle that themselves.

  • ant1sthenes||

    *argument

  • macsnafu||

    No, that's just a solution for dealing with the current laws. Which points out part of the problem with these anti-discrimination laws. We want the bigots to be obvious to the rest of society, so that they know who not to deal with, not hidden or festering in the darkness, merely doing what is compelled by law and disguising their bigotry.

  • Napoleon Bonoparte||

    I wonder what it would take for our Enlightened and Tolerant moderns to finally acknowledge our Benighted and Bigoted ancestors weren't quite as stupid as they thought?

    This guy gets it exactly right.

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • Homple||

    I liked that.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Respondent's denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn't supposed to be, and that she wasn't supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven. ... [She] interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life. She felt anger, intense sorrow, and shame. These are reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everybody else."

    I'm going out on a limb and guessing that the bakers never said any of these horrible things, that the bakers' behavior simply *reminded* the respondent of things others had said to her, or things which she read, etc.

    Imagine someone raised by an abusive father, or who went into an abusive relationship, who gets a job where her boss criticizes her for something. Then she flips out and sues the boss because [sob, sob], getting rejected by her boss reminds her of how Daddy always said she was no good, and she needs over 100 gs to salve her hurt feelings.

  • Tony||

    These bakers are serious asshole Jesus freaks.

    Which is their right! You have a right to be a member of the KKK too, you just can't run a business that is open to the general public and say "no blacks allowed." Anymore, that is--and we've been in an unfree hellhole ever since for that reason, obviously.

  • RAHeinlein||

    I don't accept your basic premise, but I'm curious to know what you consider an appropriate punishment for a business that violates public accommodation laws?

  • pronomian||

    Boycott, social pressure. Think a business will stay in business long if it refuses to cater to a large section of the population? If there's a business next to you which sells what you do and it says, no blacks, no gays, no asians, etc., and you have a sign saying "We don't discriminate against anyone." Who do you think will be more successful and have the greater chance of staying in business?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Gays are not a large section of the population just a vocal grievance mongering group.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    So you are ok forcing a gay baker to bake a cake with a Confederate Flag background and "God hates Fags" written across it?

  • Win Bear||

    So you are ok forcing a gay baker to bake a cake with a Confederate Flag background and "God hates Fags" written across it?

    As a libertarian, I am not OK with forcing anybody to engage in any business transaction.

    But we don't live in a libertarian world. Since, under current law, a Catholic can force a homosexual baker to bake a cake for him, I don't see why the reverse shouldn't be law as well.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    I suppose the only way Tony would get this would be if a group of heterosexual Christians were to launch a campaign of routinely going to bars, restaurants, and other establishments frequented by homosexuals as paying customers. Even if they actually actually ordered food and drink, paid appropriate tips for service, and behaved in a manner that would be acceptable in other venues, their peculiar mannerisms, couplings, and rites would annoy staff and other customers. If they did it often enough, I've no doubt that a waiter or a cook would do something that was legally actionable.

    Back in the 1980s, Ms. Cato and I once selected a restaurant of such a nature in the Montrose area of Houston. (I had remembered it as a good restaurant with no particular clientele when I was there on business in the mid-1970s.) We arrived for an early supper, and were advised by the host that our kind was really not the sort that his restaurant typically catered to. He advised us to leave, we did, and that was the end of that. Of course, as libertarians, we respected his right to run his restaurant as he pleased.

    Assholish behavior begets assholish behavior. The gay movement should be careful in its advocacy of assholish behavior since public accommodation works both ways.

  • Win Bear||

    Assholish behavior begets assholish behavior. The gay movement should be careful in its advocacy of assholish behavior since public accommodation works both ways.

    I think more assholish behavior would be a good thing. People should sue each other constantly under the various non-discrimination laws. It's only when people get fed up with these laws enough that they have a chance of getting repealed.

    were advised by the host that our kind was really not the sort that his restaurant typically catered to. He advised us to leave, we did

    More likely, he was concerned that you might make a scene and call the cops. Given that homosexuality and "public indecency" were illegal and cops liked to hassle gay establishments, that would have been a major problem for him. These days, nobody would care.

  • macsnafu||

    Why can't you be an asshole who runs a business that says "no blacks allowed"? If your bigotry is is so deep that you'd turn down good money and send your customers to your competitors, isn't that punishment enough for being an asshole? I, for one, would be happy to know who the bigots are so I can avoid them, instead of doing business with bigots who are pretending not to be because of anti-discrimination laws. Don't we have a right to know who the bigots in our society are? Or is keeping it in the closet festering until someone goes beserk and shoots up a church full of black people okay with you?

  • Napoleon Bonoparte||

    I'm going out on a limb and guessing that the bakers never said any of these horrible things

    But they should have.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I'm guessing that's sarcastic?

  • R C Dean||

    Since they are doing the time, they might as well have done the crime.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "The state is legally in the right here as far as ruling the Kleins have broken public accommodation laws. Making a wedding cake in and of itself doesn't count as a form of speech under the law, and the law does not recognize the Kleins' belief that forcing them to make a cake is the same as offering a stamp of approval and going against their faith."

    Not so fast, slim, these legal issues are not as open-and-shut as you suggest, and the appeals courts haven't reached a consensus yet.

    And, seriously, if some "artist" gets to practice free expression by pouring chocolate all over herself, why can't a baker exercise free expression by deciding what life events warrant, or don't warrant, celebration with cakes?

  • Agent Cupcake||

    This is literally my favorite story ever. I will read every article, comment, and blog post about it - I just think it is so weird that in the US, an individual's labor has become community property. In other words: slavery is back, baby! And once again, the Dems are the ones instigating it.

  • OzarkAggie||

    This is an Administrative Ruling so they can appeal to an actual court. Doesn't matter if they violated the law, the damage award is so out of line that they can petition for relief.

    If the homosexual community sees this as a win they are mistaken.

  • R C Dean||

    The process is still the punishment.

    The gay activists see this as a huge win, and are already on record as planning a nationwide campaign of more such lawsuits.

    I wonder if those who supported going to court to mandate gay marriage licensing are feeling itchy yet. They laid down with dogs, and now they've got fleas.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    For good reasons our law treats businesses that serve the public a little differently.


    Businesses don't serve "the public," they serve customers and NO, it is not the same.

    If there hadn't been systematic bigotry against certain groups, such laws wouldn't have been necessary.


    You're begging the question, Tony, showing once more Marxians have a problem with logic.

    A person has an absolute right to be a bigot and another person has an absolute right not to do business with that person. But no one, absolutely no one, has a right to someone else's property without the benefit of a voluntary trade, regardless of which group that person claims to belong.

  • Tony||

    And absolute property rights are enforced by whom? If I recall, it's a general agreement of the people of a community, assuming no disputes. A perfectly realistic scenario.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    And absolute property rights are enforced by whom?


    By me and my two friends: Smith, and Wesson. Give it a try and you will realize the truth of that in a couple of seconds.

    If I recall, it's a general agreement of the people of a community, assuming no disputes. A perfectly realistic scenario.


    You recall incorrectly. Why are you assuming "no disputes"? If that's the standard, then why would government be any better, or do you also assume "no disputes"?

    You're conflating two entirely different issues which are ownership and claim of ownership. Disputes are a matter of settling a claim; claims are settled through evidence, and property IS evidence.

  • pronomian||

    This is a perfect marketing ploy. If they can get 6 digits for being refused to have a cake made then make it known you don't make cakes for gay weddings and when the scammers like these two (since I'm assuming there are more bakers around who can make a cake) come in, have a change of mind and if they change theirs, sue.

  • daviddavid||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • macsnafu||

    Start making cash right now. Find a bigoted store owner who doesn't like you and sue him for refusing to do business with you. The more radical and extreme you are, the better!

  • lafe.long||

    One other thing that Scott doesn't mention in this article is the gag order:

    Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

    “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation”

    ... so they are not allowed to TALK about not making gay wedding cakes.

  • lap83||

    trying to prevent them from getting funding I'm guessing

  • R C Dean||

    Well, I think Oregon has hit the trifecta, and has managed to comprehensively violate all three rights that the 1A is supposed to protect:

    (1) Freedom of religion
    (2) Freedom of speech
    (3) Freedom of association

    And, yes, that absurd damage award is just going to feed the coming avalanche of cases just like this.

    For Great Freedom!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: RC Dean,

    You forgot the most important of all rights without which everything else is for mothing: the bakers' PROPERTY RIGHTS.

  • lap83||

    They've been ordered to pay $135,000 to make up for the emotional damage they caused by telling this couple no.

    That's a good way of putting it. We now live in a nation where judges get to decide whether we have freedom of speech and if not, how much we must be punished for trying to exercise it.

  • MarkLastname||

    Tony tells me it's "public life." In public, you'll do and say what the state tells you to do or say, and you'll like it.

    And those of use who don't like it, well, he says we're the fascists.

  • WTFrontyardAmerica||

    The easy solution for this certain predicament is to hire a Sub contractor to bake the cake and add 100% commission for making the phone call.

  • pxfragonard||

    Hurt feelings? My ruling: $0.00

  • dweb1979||

    I'm completely okay with this bakery excersing their First Amendment rights to freedom of association, so long as the following things are taken into account:

    1. Does the 1st Amendment only apply to federal laws, or also the states? If it doesn't apply to the states (taking the 10th Amendment into account), then each state may make their own laws regarding discrimination. Illinois and Colorado ban it based on sexual orientation, but Alabama and Texas don't. Is that okay?

    2. If there is an uproar over laws that ban bakeries from refusing service to same-sex couples, and we're okay with that, should we also be okay them being able to refuse service based on *any* belief, including a disapproval of interracial marriage, having sex before marriage, or anything else? If so, then we should repeal the parts of the Civil Rights Act that applied to private property and business.

    If so, then all civil rights protections that interfere with private contracts should be repealed.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Why should Marcus 3X Al-Shabazz, owner and operator of the Black Muslim Cafe and Catering Service, be forced to cater an interracial wedding where they sing "doesn't matter if you're black or white"?

    That would be majorly contrary to Marcus' religion. The happy couple should go next door and find a non-crazy caterer, and Marcus should keep doing his thing. Everyone's happy.

  • Reverend Draco||

    We reserve the right to refuse service.

    Take your skittles flag somewhere else.

  • gera567||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    The "public accommodations" law is wrong, as is the whole idea of private businesses and premises being "public accommodations" in the first place. Any private citizen who is in business has the absolute right to refuse to serve or trade with anyone, at any time, for any reason. That ability to refuse, with the only penalty being loss of the potential benefit of the transaction in question, is one of the essential things that a market requires, in order to be "free." Discrimination should never be required by law, and the government should treat all people as equal under the law. But there should also be no law that forbids private citizens from discriminating in their personal or business lives. Everyone who discriminates for irrational, perhaps counterproductive reasons, creates an opportunity for someone else to cater to the target of discrimination; that's the proper and most peaceful remedy in such cases. Also, arbitrary, unjust discrimination tends to inspire retaliatory discrimination against the perpetrator(s), which can be a terrible punishment and a powerful persuader.

  • JohnGaltstone||

    After years of discriminating against others because of their sexuality, now the shoe is on the other foot and there is a price to pay for doing what you know is wrong. So now every conservative and libertarian will cry and whine and complain about it until the next issue where old white people no longer rule will piss them off.

  • Matdarat||

    So a gay couple doesnt like not getting a cake, so they sue. A Texas Veteran with a service dog due to PTSD is refused a motel room because of the dog. Do they sue...no. Major differences in impact, a celebration cake versus shelter, and different actions. The Veterans family calls police and things are quietly resolved, the gays run to court and ruin lives. So later when gays get told no because of their infamy and troublemaking who will they sue? I think the Vetreans family should have sued... But they probably aren't looking to make trouble.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • blcartwright||

    "[She] interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life."

    If she felt that way, read the Bible to find the truth. It also offers a solution - repent

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online