Jump to content
IGNORED

Gay community takes care of hateful bakers.


doggie

Recommended Posts

Got to love people who show christian haters how to love.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/10/19 ... ssa-klein/

n a surprising turn of events, a gay rights activist and members of the LGBT community are contributing funds to help a couple who was fined more than $150,000 for violating the civil rights of a gay couple last year.

Matt Stolhandske, a gay rights activist, started the rally.org This Is Love donation page, in order to help the owners of Sweet Cakes bakery, Melissa and Aaron Klein. Stohandske, who is gay, is also a board member for the non-profit organization Evangelicals for Marriage Equality.

A year ago, the Kleins drew national attention for their refusal to take an order for a wedding cake which was to be served at a same sex marriage ceremony. The couple who ordered the cake, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, say that Aaron Klein said they were “an abomination to the Lord.†They filed a complaint against the bakery with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry, who recently ruled that there was “serious evidence that the couple broke the law by refusing to bake the cake.†The state ordered them to pay a fine that totals more than $150,000.

The Kleins, who originally said they would rather close down their business than be forced to bake cakes for gay people, blamed everyone else when their business did close. In addition to stating that they’d prefer to close their business than have to follow the state’s anti-discrimination laws, Aaron Klein also said:

I’d rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in than to see him bow down because one person complained.

But then, after lots and lots of other people also complained, Klein blamed “the gay agenda.†The couple went on TV to describe the devastating experience of having to endure other people complaining about being discriminated against.

In late September, after the ruling, Melissa Klein posted the following comment to her Facebook page:

“Our culture has accepted 2 huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.†— Rick Warren

Let’s be clear, no-one asked this couple to agree with anything. What was asked (and what is required by law) is that the Kleins provide the same services to people they ‘disagree with,’ that they would provide to anyone else. Unfortunately, the lie they’ve accepted is that if you ‘disagree’ with someone, you have the right to treat them however you want. That lie has nothing to do with love or compassion, as the quote above tries to make it appear, but the response from some members of the LGBT community is a different story.

Instead of rubbing salt in their wounds, Stolhandske decided to take a different approach.

“We strongly disapprove of the Kleins’ discriminatory act towards the women who simply requested a cake for their reception,†Stolhandske says on rally.org This Is Love fundraising page: “but we are raising money to demonstrate to the Kleins what love looks like in the face of discrimination.â€

He goes on to describe the goal of the fundraiser:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

i really like this response :) granted, i thought the bakery couple got what they had coming to them (consequences and all that) but i think this is also a good ending to show them that the world isn't "hateful"...it's simply more tolerant and loving. these people who obviously disagree with their stance on homosexuality are helping them out anyway. why? because they feel it's the right thing to do. i wonder if the bakery couple will reevaluate their beliefs on serving certain people now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the people will accept "gay" funds. Some people are just bigots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see if they accept the funds. To be consistent, they should not.

Four is enough- jinx- you owe me a coke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the people will accept "gay" funds. Some people are just bigots.

i'm also wondering this, too. i know some people who would refuse it, but i'm not sure if this couple will or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely a feel-good story, but I don't think any self-respecting gay person should donate. My thought is, how will this discrimination stop on a broad scale, not just with these guys, if the discriminating people don't face serious consequences? It's important to deter future discrimination. Also, making the "offender" pay the fine best serves the restitution and retribution aims of said fine- look up "purposes of criminal punishment". How are they going to reimburse society for their harmful actions, if the bakery is not the one paying the fine?

People who discriminate need to be aware that there are real consequences, that will seriously hurt them, if they act like jerks. This really dilutes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with lawlifelgbt. I don't think the owners of that bakery will have a change of heart. They'd rather lose their business than to bake a damned cake for a same-sex couple. If they accept the money, they won't reopen shop, and they're getting away with no consequences. Closing the shop is their choice. The legal penalty is the fines. Let them pay it.

The intention behind this fundraiser is sweet, but isn't going to change the hearts of people who literally closed their business and lost their means of supporting themselves because they feel that strongly about not baking a cake if it's recipients are a same-sex couple. That's pretty hard-core. I don't know how many other fundies would bankrupt their families. Their beliefs tend to end when fines begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do absolutely support gay marriage and would boycott the bakery personally, but I don't believe the law should force someone to do business with another person.

I'm not from the US, but if I had a business, and the PP or ZsuZsu, the FRC or any other crazy fundie group I strongly dislike would show up at my door, I'd like to have the freedom to turn them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do absolutely support gay marriage and would boycott the bakery personally, but I don't believe the law should force someone to do business with another person.

I'm not from the US, but if I had a business, and the PP or ZsuZsu, the FRC or any other crazy fundie group I strongly dislike would show up at my door, I'd like to have the freedom to turn them away.

The thing about running a public business in America is that you can't say "I don't like black people so I won't serve them." or "I don't like Muslims, so I won't serve them." or "I don't like Christians so I won't serve them." and, in this case "I don't like gay people so I won't serve them."

There were businesses that used almost the exact same line you did back when they were finally forced to serve people who are black, they felt that the law shouldn't force them to do business with a black person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about running a public business in America is that you can't say "I don't like black people so I won't serve them." or "I don't like Muslims, so I won't serve them." or "I don't like Christians so I won't serve them." and, in this case "I don't like gay people so I won't serve them."

There were businesses that used almost the exact same line you did back when they were finally forced to serve people who are black, they felt that the law shouldn't force them to do business with a black person.

This poses an interesting question. At what point could a baker refuse? If PP came in and wanted some sort of anti-Obama cake? Or an anti-Semitic cake? What about something with a misogynistic message written on it?

I'm not defending these bakers by any means as I'm completely on board with not being able to discriminate. But I'm curious where the lines are drawn wrt the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poses an interesting question. At what point could a baker refuse? If PP came in and wanted some sort of anti-Obama cake? Or an anti-Semitic cake? What about something with a misogynistic message written on it?

I'm not defending these bakers by any means as I'm completely on board with not being able to discriminate. But I'm curious where the lines are drawn wrt the law.

I think you can refuse to provide any sort of certain service as a business owner, as long as you don't discriminate. In other words, I could refuse to decorate a cake with anti-Obama or anti-Semetic messages as long as I was refusing to provide any hostile to people/politicians/religions to anyone. I couldn't advertise my anti-fundamentalist cakes and then refuse to do anti-Catholic ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The local place where we sometimes buy cakes refuses to write curse words, crude language or hate speech on cakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it comes down to is that you can decide what kind of services you will provide (You can, for instance, decide that your bakery will not provide wedding cakes as a service at all), but not who you provide those services to (if you provide wedding cakes, you provide them to everyone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely a feel-good story, but I don't think any self-respecting gay person should donate. My thought is, how will this discrimination stop on a broad scale, not just with these guys, if the discriminating people don't face serious consequences? It's important to deter future discrimination. Also, making the "offender" pay the fine best serves the restitution and retribution aims of said fine- look up "purposes of criminal punishment". How are they going to reimburse society for their harmful actions, if the bakery is not the one paying the fine?

People who discriminate need to be aware that there are real consequences, that will seriously hurt them, if they act like jerks. This really dilutes that.

I disagree. Punishment has never been proven to be helpful. Showing love and helping people out is a much better way to behave. Even if they don't change the Kleins' minds, the people donating are making themselves feel better because they're doing a good thing and taking the really high road.

I think having to close their bakery is fair if they refuse to follow the rules, but paying $150,000 is poopy. Who has $150,000?

If the Kleins had to sell their house and give up their children's college funds in order to pay that fine, do you think that would make them hate gay people more or less? If gay people donate the money to cover the fine, do you think that will make the Kleins hate gay people more or less?

The answers are (1) more and (2) less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can refuse to provide any sort of certain service as a business owner, as long as you don't discriminate. In other words, I could refuse to decorate a cake with anti-Obama or anti-Semetic messages as long as I was refusing to provide any hostile to people/politicians/religions to anyone. I couldn't advertise my anti-fundamentalist cakes and then refuse to do anti-Catholic ones.

I know this is a sensitive topic with peope having different opinions. But I still believe strongly in the freedom of contract and am against any obligation to contract. Even if this means, that a business owner can turn black/gay/white/straight/female/male and so on people away. I think you should be able to refuse to do business with a person on any grounds you chose.

The ususal businesses don't discriminate, as they want to gain as much costumers as possible. And the ones that want to do, well, I honestly rather be able to identify the a*** than never knowing if I'm actually wanted here as a costumer. I would boycott any business that discriminates against race/religion/gender and so on. I'm gay myself, so I do understand the anger and outrage of this couple. But I don't think forcing some homophobic baker who hates them making a cake for them is the right solution.

I would never wanted to be forced to make a cake (even if it's just a birthday cake) for people like the PP or the active members of Westboro baptist church, who think I should be stoned.

I wouldn't want to be forced to bake a cake for the Republican party, or for a congress where they rally against gay marriage.

Not that it would be likely that someone like the PP would even want to walk into my store, but I'm actually fearing the day where some homophobes force a gay business owner to bake some kind of homophobic cake just to spite them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it would be likely that someone like the PP would even want to walk into my store, but I'm actually fearing the day where some homophobes force a gay business owner to bake some kind of homophobic cake just to spite them.

Ah, but unless they offer homophobe cakes to everyone, they have no obligation to offer homophobe cakes to actual homophobes. Businesses can currently say "We don't do wedding cakes with rainbows all over them. We only do plain white cakes." They just have to give them to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but unless they offer homophobe cakes to everyone, they have no obligation to offer homophobe cakes to actual homophobes. Businesses can currently say "We don't do wedding cakes with rainbows all over them. We only do plain white cakes." They just have to give them to everyone.

I'm not entierely sure how this works in the US, but in the UK, they had this case:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683949/Bakery-court-gay-cake-row-owners-refused-decorate-confectionery-slogan-support-gay-marriage.html

If a bakery can be forced to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage, they could be equally forced to make a cake with a slogan against gay marriage. Or, for that matter, making a cake or flyers with advertise some religious or political group they don't agree with at all. Say some crazy fundie cult (like PPs church, the ATI) or some radical left or right wing party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fundies who want to use their beliefs as an excuse for refusing service to a certain class of people should be careful what they wish for. If I owned a restaurant, I might not want to serve Christians, because in my experience they are lousy tippers. Also they'll disturb the other patrons with their loud prayers before they eat. Similarly, I might want to refuse to seat people with a bunch of children because who has time to clean up the mess they leave? It doesn't matter if "not all Christians" behave this way. If I believe that they do, then my beliefs trump their right to accommodation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fundies who want to use their beliefs as an excuse for refusing service to a certain class of people should be careful what they wish for. If I owned a restaurant, I might not want to serve Christians, because in my experience they are lousy tippers. Also they'll disturb the other patrons with their loud prayers before they eat. Similarly, I might want to refuse to seat people with a bunch of children because who has time to clean up the mess they leave? It doesn't matter if "not all Christians" behave this way. If I believe that they do, then my beliefs trump their right to accommodation.

That would be your right. There are, by the way, restaurants (even at Disney!) and hotels which are adult-only. Some restaurants, hotels, schools and colleges are women-only. In some clubs and associations, you can only join if you belong to a cerain religion, gender and even race I think.

Like I said before, usually the market doesn't discriminate. A business owner is otherwise put out of business pretty quickly. These problems with people who discriminate usually resolve themselves.

Also, I'm convinced this fine for the homophobe bakers is highly counterproductive for the cause of gay marriage itself. Now organisations like the FRC use this example in order to scare people of gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Punishment has never been proven to be helpful. Showing love and helping people out is a much better way to behave. Even if they don't change the Kleins' minds, the people donating are making themselves feel better because they're doing a good thing and taking the really high road.

I think having to close their bakery is fair if they refuse to follow the rules, but paying $150,000 is poopy. Who has $150,000?

I understand that $150,000 is a lot, and that the fine could harm these specific people. But, a case like this is about more than these specific bakers. If there is not a consequence for which they are responsible- and closing the bakery was their choice, not a consequence- other people who would discriminate would see that this couple "got away" with discrimination or at least were blunted from the consequences. It's like with a kid- if you did a bad thing as a kid, but had a helicopter parent that would take care of any consequences of your actions for you, you'd be more likely to do bad or stupid things.

The key here is deterrence. Seeing the serious consequence faced would make other people who would discriminate anxious or fearful about said consequences. Again, kid analogy. If the kid that threw spitballs is sent to the principal's office and given a week's detention, it will keep other would-be throwers from throwing spitballs, since they have seen a severe consequence.

Your reasoning makes sense only if you look at their refusal without a broader context. In the big picture, it's better for these people to face a consequence that, yes, could seriously harm their life, if it prevents others from refusing to follow the law (and thus facing a similar consequence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things that are being conflated here (including in my own earlier post) are a business owner's right to provide whatever services he or she wishes, versus being able to choose WHO is able to purchase those goods or services.

For instance, if I owned a restaurant that specialized in Lobster and cheeseburgers, Jewish people who kept Kosher rules would not be able to eat there and conform to the tenets of their religion. Am I being discriminatory? No. However, if I refused to serve my food to Jewish people, that would be.

If I specialized in baking cakes for baby showers and refused to bake a wedding cake for a LGBT couple, that would be fine, as long as I wasn't making wedding cakes for anyone. However, I should not be able to refuse to sell them a cake for the baby shower they're having for their child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously there should be sanctions for discrimination, but $150,000 is such a steep price for a small, family owned business, that I don't think it supports the cause. I do not think these people will ever, ever change their mind about gay marriage, which they may have naturally evolved over time, as they saw that the LGBT community is not so "other" as their strict ideology had led them to believe. I don't mean to imply that lesbians and gays are responsible for teaching each and every homophobe in the US - I mean, my gawd. If people are unrepentant assholes about their bigotry, a minority group should absolutely NOT have to subject themselves to verbal abuse. This couple sounds absolutely awful. But now, instead of just the couple themselves, we have their children, their church, and the outlying, Duck Dynasty-watching community, saying "This is AMERICA. Where we have CAPITALISM. And now the SOCIALISTS are forcing us to BAKE CAKES." Which is utter bullshit, but ultimately, not cooking a cake for a "lifestyle" they "disagree with" (I f*cking HATE when people use those terms) has caused them to completely lose their livelihood and go bankrupt. It makes them martyrs. Personally, I think something in the $15,000-$20,000 range would be more appropriate (without knowing more information). If they refused to comply with THAT figure - okay. It's a bit more obvious that their stubborness is more important than their financial future.

With all this said, I should probably add that I have strong feelings about "making examples of someone" in the criminal sense. I don't support it in legal matters. This is how small-time drug dealers end up with life sentences in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Recent Status Updates

    • Scrabblemaster

      Scrabblemaster

      I would have loved to start my jogging journey again but is cloudy and rainy and a little bit snowy. Damn it. Maybe I will start nevertheless. When I start in shitty weather I might continue in good weather.
      · 4 replies
    • indianabones

      indianabones

      While I may love cross country skiing, my tailbone does not.
      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      words of wisdom

      · 0 replies
    • Kiki03910

      Kiki03910

      I joined for the snark and stayed for the insight.
      · 0 replies
    • Bluebirdbluebell

      Bluebirdbluebell

      Disgusted with Catholic Church over Cardinal Pell's funeral this week. It really reflects poorly on the church and should be a red flag to Catholics.
      · 0 replies
    • PennySycamore

      PennySycamore

      I've been away since about 10 PM on Monday evening.  My husband noticed that my speech was a bit slurred, called my daughter to see if she concurred and they both agreed that I needed to go to the hospital.  There I was taken back within minutes to be evaluated for a stroke.   My BP was sky-high. I. undressed and was helped into a hospital gown.  The PureWick did not work that night so when I had to go I just went.  (I do want a PureWick if I ever get urinary stress incontenence though and would need to wear diapers.). 
      I had a CT scan fairly early the next morning and it confirmed that I'd sufffered a mild stroke,  I had an MRI that afternoon which confirmed the both the mild stroke and no other damage and yet I had another CT scan -this time with a contrast medium injected.  I was allowed the Heart Healthy diet and my BP had dropped to 180/100.  They don'y want to drop the BP too rapidly so it has dropped enough to turn to Lisinipril to drop it further.
      After the ER. I was sent to the ICU and stayed until I was discharged this afternoon.  The staff were all really nice and my husband and two daughters were with me most of the time, helping out.  My oldest daughter's van was in the shop so I let her borrow the MINI since I knew she could drive a stick.  When she was visiting yesterday afternoon, her husband was in the ER waiting on a CT can and today, she was there when the speech pathologist was visiting.  She was able to get some good advice from her as her husband is currently unable to swallow.
      Anyway I'm home.  My dogs and the cat to see me home, especially my dachsie, were happy to see me home.
      A couple of things I learned:
      I need to teach my husband about loading the dishwasher.
      and 
      Jill would never be able to handle bedpans.
      · 11 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Fornicate.  Six more weeks of winter according to Phil.
      · 0 replies
    • Jinder Roles

      Jinder Roles

      Currently obsessed with Laura Mvula, a musical genius
      · 0 replies
    • Bluebirdbluebell

      Bluebirdbluebell

      I highly recommend Not the Good Girl's Youtube channel. She is making great documentaries about cults.
      · 0 replies
    • BlackberryGirl

      BlackberryGirl

      Ohh jeeze, GrandBerry6 just came to me, snuggled his face in my neck and barfed, all over me. In my neck, in my hair, on my face, down inside my nightie all over the front of my nightie. Ohh FUCK! Bath, washed hair, cleaned sofa. Good times, good times.
      · 3 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.