same-sex wedding cake case

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi folks,

A little update that I can easily support:  Oregon same-sex wedding cake case: Labor commissioner slashes penalty for bakery that refused to sell to couple - oregonlive.com

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Val Hoyle is running for the US House of Reps in a district that has quite a lot of GOP voters.

[riggerrob 558]

Still too big a fine.

Anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage should be allowed to quietly step aside without penalty.

The same goes for abortion, trans-gender surgery, etc. Any medical professional should be allowed to quietly step aside without penalty.

As for the county clerk who refused to process paperwork for a same-sex marriage/civil union/whatever ... she should have quietly stepped aside and handed the task to a less biased co-worker.

Please remember that our world is rapidly changing and many things that are legal now were illegal until recently. For example, when I was young, homosexuality was illegal in Canada. Homosexuals were routinely arrested, jailed, fined, etc. Even for decades after Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced that "gov't has no role in the bedrooms of the nation", Canadian Military Police routinely arrested any service member suspected of homosexuality. 

You will never change the minds of some people. You can only wait until they retire. In the meantime, when asked to perform a duty that clashes with their moral or religious values, they should just quietly step aside.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

19 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Still too big a fine.

Anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage should be allowed to quietly step aside without penalty.

The same goes for abortion, trans-gender surgery, etc. Any medical professional should be allowed to quietly step aside without penalty.

As for the county clerk who refused to process paperwork for a same-sex marriage/civil union/whatever ... she should have quietly stepped aside and handed the task to a less biased co-worker.

Please remember that our world is rapidly changing and many things that are legal now were illegal until recently. For example, when I was young, homosexuality was illegal in Canada. Homosexuals were routinely arrested, jailed, fined, etc. Even for decades after Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced that "gov't has no role in the bedrooms of the nation", Canadian Military Police routinely arrested any service member suspected of homosexuality. 

You will never change the minds of some people. You can only wait until they retire. In the meantime, when asked to perform a duty that clashes with their moral or religious values, they should just quietly step aside.

You're equating abortion and trans-gender surgery, specialty medical procedures that not every medical professional is trained to provide, with selling a lousy wedding cake? We disagree, then. If you open a retail shop for business to the general public then you must sell your products to the entire general public. To do otherwise is nothing short of discrimination and that we should all strive to end.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

36 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Still too big a fine.

Anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage should be allowed to quietly step aside without penalty.

The same goes for abortion, trans-gender surgery, etc. Any medical professional should be allowed to quietly step aside without penalty.

As for the county clerk who refused to process paperwork for a same-sex marriage/civil union/whatever ... she should have quietly stepped aside and handed the task to a less biased co-worker.

Please remember that our world is rapidly changing and many things that are legal now were illegal until recently. For example, when I was young, homosexuality was illegal in Canada. Homosexuals were routinely arrested, jailed, fined, etc. Even for decades after Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced that "gov't has no role in the bedrooms of the nation", Canadian Military Police routinely arrested any service member suspected of homosexuality. 

You will never change the minds of some people. You can only wait until they retire. In the meantime, when asked to perform a duty that clashes with their moral or religious values, they should just quietly step aside.

Hi Rob,

The refusal was based upon religious beliefs.  

However, the cake shop violated the laws of the State of Oregon.

That is where the whole 'fine' thing came into the picture.

In fact, the cake shop had agreed to bake & sell the wedding cake until they found out it was for a same sex wedding.

Pretty hard to just quietly step aside when you are open for business.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

Anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage should be allowed to quietly step aside without penalty.

I agree - to an extent.  But there are limits.

For example, all bars and restaurants say they have the right to refuse service to patrons, and are indeed sometimes obligated to do so.  But if everyone in a given restaurant refused to serve blacks - if they all "quietly stepped aside" when a black person came in - I have a feeling you would probably be opposed to that.  (I would too.)  Because that is effectively denying blacks a service that whites enjoy.

Now, if a specific server didn't want to serve blacks for whatever reason, and the management had someone else cover that table, then I'd say that the server was something of a bigot - but no service was denied to anyone based on their race, so there's no real injustice.

If a baker declines to make a cake for gay (or black, or female) people, and they just stepped aside and let someone else in the cake shop bake it - no problem either.  No service has been denied.  However, if the business as a whole says "no one in my business may serve blacks/gays/women/veterans" then we have a bigger problem.  That's certainly an injustice.  The level of injustice depends on how much that harms the people being discriminated against.  If there's another bakery right next door - minimal harm.  If that's the only bakery in their town - larger harm.  And if you're going to fine them, that's a good way to quantify both harm and penalty.  But there is always some level of harm.

So I agree that any person should be able to step aside without penalty.  But when one person makes a decision for all the people working for them - "I won't serve blacks and you can't either" - that's a bigger problem, and I can see fining someone for that. 

In this case, if Melissa Klein didn't want to do it, and she passed the order on to one of her bakers, then no worries.  She doesn't have to make a cake for an immoral faggot; someone else does who doesn't mind doing it can make it.  But she didn't do that.  She and her husband said that there will be no baking of cakes for gays at her business, regardless of who was willing to do it or not.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

So I agree that any person should be able to step aside without penalty.  But when one person makes a decision for all the people working for them - "I won't serve blacks and you can't either" - that's a bigger problem, and I can see fining someone for that. 

I se your point but to my mind that is significantly worse. That's a hell of a load to put on a subordinate who might need the job bad enough to deny their morality. So if it's the boss, no bueno; if it's an employee they should be dismissed. 

[wmw999 2,116]

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I se your point but to my mind that is significantly worse. That's a hell of a load to put on a subordinate who might need the job bad enough to deny their morality. So if it's the boss, no bueno; if it's an employee they should be dismissed. 

I’m not sure I’m down with that across the board. Maybe a racist or otherwise bigoted (because religion really matters to some people. Making the choice between unemployable and religion is a toughie. Maybe stay in non-customer-facing jobs. There are plenty of those 

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

30 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I’m not sure I’m down with that across the board. Maybe a racist or otherwise bigoted (because religion really matters to some people. Making the choice between unemployable and religion is a toughie. Maybe stay in non-customer-facing jobs. There are plenty of those 

Wendy P. 

To be clear, I think that an employee who makes the decision to discriminate should be dismissible and no boss should kick it down stream to avoid being held for discrimination. 

[riggerrob 558]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:23 PM, JoeWeber said:

To be clear, I think that an employee who makes the decision to discriminate should be dismissible and no boss should kick it down stream to avoid being held for discrimination. 

Good point.

Employers should be held responsible for all decisions made on their premises.

Employees should net fear unemployment if they disagree with decisions made by their employers. The last time fear of poverty forced me to compromise my opinions on seat-belts ..... I never fully recovered from those injuries.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, riggerrob said:

Good point.

Employers should be held responsible for all decisions made on their premises.

Employees should net fear unemployment if they disagree with decisions made by their employers. The last time fear of poverty forced me to compromise my opinions on seat-belts ..... I never fully recovered from those injuries.

My exception is for blatant acts of discrimination, of course. The normal right to refuse service to those who earn it must remain sacrosanct. Although, and I'm sure you'll agree, just being a bit of an asshole shouldn't apply.