Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oregon bakers weren’t fined over cake — they were punished for sharing lesbian couple’s home address

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oregon bakers weren’t fined over cake — they were punished for sharing lesbian couple’s home address

    The anti-LGBT owners of an Oregon bakery were not fined for refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple – they were ordered to pay $135,000 in damages for intentionally causing their would-be customers emotional distress.

    The case has attracted widespread media attention since the couple first filed their complaint in January 2013, and that is largely through the efforts of Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

    After the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries handed down the order last week, Aaron Klein claimed the ruling was an example of the “persecution of Christians” in the U.S.

    However, the ruling shows the bakery owners had made Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer the victims of persecution and makes clear the payment was compensation for damages and not a fine or civil penalty, reported the blog Love, Joy and Feminism.

    The ruling shows the Kleins “brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding” the couple who filed the complaint.

    Read the entire ruling here

    “It was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact (the Bowman-Cryers), making (the Kleins) liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by (them),” the agency found.

    Not only that, as the blog explains, the bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.

    Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed the complaint in January 2013, after she and her mother had met with Aaron Klein – who refused them service and quoted an anti-LGBT verse from Leviticus.

    She filed her complaint by smartphone, which prevented her from seeing a disclaimer notifying her that her full name and address would be sent to the bakery owners – and Aaron Klein shared that information, along with the complaint, on his personal Facebook page.

    Conservative media and anti-LGBT organizations such as the Family Research Council promoted the Kleins as victims of religious discrimination.

    Rachel Bowman-Cryer said she and her wife received a steady stream of threats that continued as the Kleins promoted their side of the case in national media appearances.

    She testified that state adoption officials told them they were responsible for keeping their two foster daughters safe from those threats, and they feared they could lose custody of the girls — who they have since adopted.

    In its final order, issued last week, the labor bureau found the Kleins had violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws – but the damages awarded were not a “gay fascism tax,” as some commenters argued.

    The bureau found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”
    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oreg...-home-address/

    I know Ben still lurks here so I'm sure he'll be relieved to know the Christian bakers didn't get fined for refusing to bake a cake.

  • #2
    It's easy to misunderstand, given the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries' own press release, which stated that the damages were for "refusal to serve",

    From the Final Order
    :

    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.
    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 BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damagesrelated tothe harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.
    ...and not word one about publishing their address.
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think publishing the name and address of the complainant had a big impact on the scale of the emotional suffering.

      Comment


      • #4
        In case anyone would like to read the actual findings... http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

        It seems like it's all of the above mentioned reasons and more. Before any of the more religious folks get butthurt over this, there was a finding of $300K+ for a religious discrimination case cited in the precedents for this case.

        Comment


        • #5
          We should remove marriage rights from christians. They most certainly shouldn't be allowed to raise children.
          “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
          "Capitalism ho!"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by giblets View Post
            http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oreg...-home-address/

            I know Ben still lurks here so I'm sure he'll be relieved to know the Christian bakers didn't get fined for refusing to bake a cake.
            No, the Oregon bakers weren’t fined for publishing the complainant’s home address, or for otherwise publicizing the complaint against them

            I don’t think that’s right. It’s true that the agency sought to hold the bakery owners liable for publicizing the complaint against them. But the Commissioner expressly rejected this theory of liability:

            In its closing argument, the Agency asked the forum to award Complainants $75,000 each in emotional suffering damages stemming directly from the denial of service, In addition, the Agency asked the forum to award damages to Complainants for emotional suffering they experienced as a result of the media and social media attention generated by the case from January 29, 2013, the date AK posted LBC’s DOJ complaint on his Facebook page, up to the date of hearing. The Agency’s theory of liability is that since Respondents brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding Complainants, it was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact Complainants, making Respondents liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by Complainants. The Agency also argues that Respondents are liable for negative third party social media directed at Complainants because it was a foreseeable consequence of the media attention.

            The Commissioner concludes that complainants’ emotional harm related to the denial of service continued throughout the period of media attention and that the facts related solely to emotional harm resulting from media attention do not adequately support an award of damages. No further analysis regarding the media attention as a causative factor is, therefore, necessary.
            Now I think the Agency’s theory, presented in its capacity as essentially as the civil case equivalent of a prosecutor, is outrageous: People have a First Amendment right to publicize the complaints against them, including the names of the complainants, notwithstanding the possible bad publicity for the complainants (just as complainants have to be free to publicize the names of the people they are complaining about). And while it’s possible that rules requiring the redaction of the complainants’ home addresses might be constitutional (but see p. 1115 of this article), I know of no such requirement under Oregon law.

            But, in any event, the Commissioner didn’t buy the Agency’s theory, unless there’s something about the decision that I’m missing.

            Thanks to Ron Milbauer for the pointer.
            Troll Ben with facts (not nonsense) and be better than you believe him to be.
            I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
            For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

            Comment


            • #7
              Who would want a lesbian couple's home address?
              Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

              Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

              Comment


              • #8
                Door-to-door vibrator salespeople?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by snrjefe View Post
                  In case anyone would like to read the actual findings... http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

                  It seems like it's all of the above mentioned reasons and more. Before any of the more religious folks get butthurt over this, there was a finding of $300K+ for a religious discrimination case cited in the precedents for this case.
                  Only a single factor could have been considered by the court. This is the one thing both sides can agree on ... why are you trying to drive us even further apart as a nation?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    maybe they were after sour dough
                    Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

                    Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Aeson View Post
                      Only a single factor could have been considered by the court. This is the one thing both sides can agree on ... why are you trying to drive us even further apart as a nation?

                      It's a hobby. What else am I going to do as a 41 year old divorced dad of 2 kids under 10? Ain't nobody got time for Civ no more.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DinoDoc View Post
                        Now I think the Agency’s theory, presented in its capacity as essentially as the civil case equivalent of a prosecutor, is outrageous: People have a First Amendment right to publicize the complaints against them, including the names of the complainants, notwithstanding the possible bad publicity for the complainants (just as complainants have to be free to publicize the names of the people they are complaining about).
                        lol okay so you have a constitutional right to start a harassment campaign against someone who files a complaint about your business conduct.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by giblets View Post
                          I think publishing the name and address of the complainant had a big impact on the scale of the emotional suffering.
                          Probably, but the article's implication that it was a deliberate misstatement of facts is itself a deliberate misstatement of facts.
                          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That's not Chinese. Look Vietnamese or one of those southeast asian countries, who the French dumped all their surplus accent marks on.
                            “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                            "Capitalism ho!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It wasn't a very good joke

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X