The politics of single sex wedding cake decorations

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Oregon Court Upholds Damages In Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case
The case “sends a strong signal” that the state “remains open to all,” the labor commissioner said.

An Oregon state appeals court on Thursday let stand $135,000 in damages levied against the owners of a Portland-area bakery for discrimination after they refused on religious grounds to prepare a wedding cake for a local lesbian couple.

A three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected a petition by Melissa and Aaron Klein, former owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, to overturn the ruling by the state’s labor commissioner as a violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution to freedom of religion and expression.


An attorney for the Kleins, who closed their bakery not long after being ordered to pay the heavy fine, could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday.

“Today’s ruling sends a strong signal that Oregon remains open to all,” Brad Avakian, the state’s labor commissioner, said in a written statement.

“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” Avakian said.

The case stems from Aaron Klein’s refusal to bake a wedding cake for Rachel Bowman-Cryer in January 2013 because she was planning a same-sex wedding to her partner Laurel, which he said violated his religious convictions.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a formal complaint with the state labor bureau, which found they had violated anti-discrimination laws and awarded the damages.

The Bowman-Cryers were married in 2014 after a federal judge struck down Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban.

The bakery case is one of many disputes nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June 2015 to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
 
What occurs when individual persons do not own their own property and can be subjected to harm for declining to associate or labor to serve another person(s) they'd prefer not to ? FORCED LABOR

Forced labor is a form of slavery.

No person should be prevented from associating with another person on the basis they mutually decide. It is their business to form or decline human relations. They're free people aren't they?

No person should be made to associate with another person or face harmful consequences.


Could anyone who supports the state using offensive force to prevent willing people who wish to associate from doing so or who supports forcing unwilling persons to associate please address my points above and kindly explain where they are in error?

I look forward to the kind and thoughtful responses.
 
What occurs when individual persons do not own their own property and can be subjected to harm for declining to associate or labor to serve another person(s) they'd prefer not to ? FORCED LABOR

Forced labor is a form of slavery.

No person should be prevented from associating with another person on the basis they mutually decide. It is their business to form or decline human relations. They're free people aren't they?

No person should be made to associate with another person or face harmful consequences.


Could anyone who supports the state using offensive force to prevent willing people who wish to associate from doing so or who supports forcing unwilling persons to associate please address my points above and kindly explain where they are in error?

I look forward to the kind and thoughtful responses.
You must have been a slave?
 
The state remains open to all.


No, it doesn't.

It is closed to individual people deciding on a mutual basis if they will or will not associate.

It assumes the same role as people who create an arranged marriage, since it does not take into account the freedom of either party to decline the relationship.
 
If you think you aren't free move. You are nuts. You have no points. You aren't the only person in the world. Get over yourself!

That still doesn't address my points. Didn't think you could.

If you think you are free, can you tell me why you think so?

Get over myself? Nice attempt at deflection. Fail.
 
It's true.

Everytime I insert a wedding cake into my rectum, the heterosexual cakes slide in much easier.

Those damn homo cakes always get hung up on my sphincter... :?

You should be allowed the freedom to insert a cake into your own rectum, but you should not be allowed to force another person to insert the cake into your rectum for you.
 
But what if it is the only way to save you?

I just thought of a way to make money in a lawsuit. Ask one of these places that make custom embossed bibles, to emboss CUNT on the front.
 
But what if it is the only way to save you?

I just thought of a way to make money in a lawsuit. Ask one of these places that make custom embossed bibles, to emboss CUNT on the front.


I like that you said "ask" them rather than make them. There is a world of difference in the two words.

I also like that you said the word cunt should be embossed on the front. It shows that you're a man of the world and know your anatomical placement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ANC
Eat-Shit-Cake_small.jpg
 
I see the demise of Christian Bakeries, perhaps they can use their baking skills in a cracker factory? Targeting them for a nice free payday and seeing their business fold must have been excellent schadenfreude
 
Last edited:
Back
Top