Oregon Rules Christian Bakers Who Refused Gay Wedding to Pay $135,000 Fine For Couple's Suffering. Who Pays Costs Of Religious Persecution?

MAJ (Join to see) Concur. Generally I fall under the "Freedom" model of all things. Freedom includes the Freedom to not do things. Freedom includes the Freedom to make bad decisions.

Nowhere that I can see, does Freedom allow compelled action.

That's just not Freedom.

I get that the Bakery was in violation of the Law. But Legal/Illegal is a different story than Right/Wrong, or even Moral/Immoral.

When they refused to sell the cake, they committed an Illegal act, and they should have been subject to a Fine, because they violated State Law. Had they continued to commit similar acts, the State could continue to fine them, or revoke their business license. That is a Privilege, as opposed to a Right.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS MAJ (Join to see) good discussion gentlemen, I've enjoyed reading it. To clarify: I recognize my generalized statement "I believe in the freedom of private business owners to refuse anyone service for any reason. And on the right of customers to shop elsewhere organize boycotts or protest" would allow business owners to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, which is wrong. I still hold to that statement without modification. I recognize discrimination has a charged and emotional history. I personally would never refuse to sell something to a paying customer based on any of their exterior traits or most of their behavioral ones (I might not sell to jerks.) However, I also believe individuals should never be compelled to provide a good or service against their will. I think business that choose to discriminate based on things like skin color, age, appearance, sexual orientation, etc. will inevitably fail in the long term. They will fail because businesses that have arisen that WILL cater to groups of people who are otherwise victimized will do better.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Made a good point that right vs wrong and legal vs illegal don't always equate, much as they should.

Saying you believe in freedom and commerce over government regulation is another way of saying you believe in voluntary agreement over force. I believe humans can resolve all of their needs and desires with voluntary agreements, so long as one side or the other has not already used force to change the conditions.

Capt Richard I P. Dead On Point.

This is where I think specific legislature (specific clauses), may have been necessary for a limited time. The Civil Right Acts provisions with "compelled actions" is a great example.

I personally think of the Government as a "Referee." Someone who keeps things fair, as opposed to someone who determines right/wrong.

Unfortunately, most machines are about maintaining a status quo, not about keeping it "fair."

Now, fair is subjective, so it's a very hard thing to nail down... but I like the old Ma Bell example. "Can someone freely enter the market?" Not necessarily succeed, just enter.

Currently, if the model is better, they have a decent chance. Companies like amazon destroyed brick & mortar book sellers.

Other companies like Chic Filet held strong despite their close held religious undertones, because they just make good chicken.

Let's see now. A private business owner is a racist and should be able to order people of color from the owner's business. "I'm not gonna build a cake for those ("N" word) people! Thinking about it, I'm also a Jew-Hater and an Arab-Hater, so I'm going to ask each potential customer what their nationality and religion are. If I hear that one is a Jew or a Muslim, "Out the door, I don't serve Christ-Killers and Infidels!" The very fact that these "inferiors" entered my private business is a trauma to me and I should be compensated! I think it's my right to hang a list of the kinds of people that I won't, as a private business owner, serve. "Yeah. Here's my list. I've just now hung it on my front door in bold-face, red felt-tipped pen! This should keep all of them out!"

Indeed Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I do construction on the side, and if I really don't want to do a job (I wouldn't make this decision based on sexual orientation) because I have other jobs I'd rather do, or because I don't want to do any jobs, I give a higher price. If they take it I'm happy, if they don't I'm happy too.

Brilliant!

I like the idea of an increased price, but feel the price of fine might triple and the increased price be used as evidence of discrimination.

SGM (Join to see) It is discrimination. It's business you don't want, AT THAT PRICE. I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but some customers aren't worth dealing with. Some customers are #^%$^$#'s, and not worth your time at "list rate." I personally think discrimination based on "star belly sneetches" criteria is wrong, however I also believe that business owners should be able to select their clientele. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

And THAT is precisely why this episode gives me a critical case of the red-ass! It was decided by an Administrative Law Judge, which is some legal geek who sits and examines the evidence, and makes a ruling - a binding, enforceable ruling - based primarily on what's in front of him and what he or she "feels" would be a fair and equitable outcome. Without defense counsel protecting the Klein family's interests, nor for that matter without expert testimony to vouch for or validate the claims of the damages "suffered" by the newly-married lesbian couple, this is the outcome: Lesbians $135 K Christians $0.00. In what universe is this a fair and equitable outcome? I mean, if this lesbian couple was truly happily married, shouldn't the feelings of "shock, stunned, and surprised have summed up the wedding night?

Watch out, they might read your coment and have another "episode" MSG Tom Earley.

Maybe that legal geek is gay.