Sweet Cakes by Melissa fined $135,000

[_MsJack]

Please keep in mind that at the time service was refused, gay marriage was illegal in the state of Oregon. So the couple wasn't engaging in any discrimination or bigotry that the state of Oregon itself wasn't already engaging in.

A similar case in nearby Washington state only yielded a $1k fine, so I see this case as a violation of the spirit of the 8th Amendment.

There is a gay rights activist trying to raise money for the couple (though his fundraising page is now defunct):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... -hates-me/

They raised $109k at GoFundMe in April before GoFundMe made up some stupid nonsense reasons to pull the campaign (but they got to keep the money raised), and they have now raised another $93k (and counting) at ContinueToGive as donations have been pouring in since yesterday:

https://www.continuetogive.com/4811392

[_sock puppet]

I think businesses should be able to discriminate against nonpayers. But even that is not permitted in many cases.

Umm sure. Why wouldn't they be allowed? What cases are you referring to?

He might be referring to emergency rooms at hospitals, or lawyers ordered by judges to defend a certain defendant, and then neither the defendant nor the state paying for that defense.

[_consiglieri]

I'm with you, EA. As ugly as bigotry is, I don't believe gov't on any level should have the power to penalize anyone and or business for their thick-headed prejudices. The way to defeat the small-mindedness is by not patronizing the offending establishments. Organized boycotting would either close the business or effect the desired change.

For me the issue is about protecting the rights of everyone. While boycotting a business may be a tool in dealing with thickheadedness, ones thickheadedness should not allow them to violate the rights of others. So stop pushing little old ladies to the ground.

But this is the crux of the issue for me.

If I run a store, nobody has the right to come in and buy something from me.

That is my right as a business owner to do business with whom I choose.

For whatever reason I choose.

I am uneasy with a government that has the power to make me do business with somebody I do not want to.

And I say this as a general principle, completely independent of the idea that I don't want to do business with somebody because of my personal religious beliefs.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

I thought America was supposed to be about the individual's right to be an asshole.

That right is alive and well in general, but haven't the federal courts carved out an exception for businesses (under the commerce clause or something similar) since the days (50's or 60's) when restaurants/hotels refused to serve African-Americans?

Federal courts have done many things with which I disagree.

And yes, you are right that the Supreme Court began (in the 1930's, I think) to use the Commerce Clause as a way of upholding the use of federal power above and beyond the limitations set forth in the Constitution.

The Commerce Clause has been so liberally construed as to make a limited federal government essentially unlimited.

[_consiglieri]

I thought America was supposed to be about the individual's right to be an asshole.

In many ways yes. I would say it is more about the right to say what you like. One can be as big of an asshole in how much they don't like little old ladies, but they shouldn't be able to be an asshole and go around pushing them to the ground. See the difference?

But refusing to do business with an old lady doesn't mean I have to push her to the ground.

[_Themis]

But refusing to do business with an old lady doesn't mean I have to push her to the ground.

Yes but one is being an asshole in both circumstances. One is legal and the other is not. Actually i see you changed my example, so both are illegal. MY example had one legal and the other not.

But this is the crux of the issue for me.

If I run a store, nobody has the right to come in and buy something from me.

That is my right as a business owner to do business with whom I choose.

For whatever reason I choose.

I am uneasy with a government that has the power to make me do business with somebody I do not want to.

And I say this as a general principle, completely independent of the idea that I don't want to do business with somebody because of my personal religious beliefs.

All the Best!

I would agree with you in most situations. Fortunately we have laws to protect the situations in which one shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. If a private business wants to be open to the public then they should know that certain discrimination should not be allowed. I do agree that this can have some fuzzy areas, but I am comfortable that most governments are coming up with a good balance that protects everyone sufficiently.

[_ajax18]

Themis are you a US citizen?

[_ajax18]

He might be referring to emergency rooms at hospitals, or lawyers ordered by judges to defend a certain defendant, and then neither the defendant nor the state paying for that defense.

And bankers that are forced to loan to people that they have judged probably will not be able or willing to pay the loan back.

Another example that we've run into is when a deaf patient comes in and demands we hire an interpreter to do her eye exam. According to the Americans with Disbalities act pen and paper isn't good enough, you must have a sign language interpreter. Of course the interpreter costs four times as much as medicaid pays for her eye exam. On top of that, the patient often no shows and you're stuck with the interpreter fee. Do you think medicaid pays if the patient no shows?

[_Themis]

Themis are you a US citizen?

No

And bankers that are forced to loan to people that they have judged probably will not be able or willing to pay the loan back.

Do you have any specific examples? Hospitals are usually compensated by the government for those who cannot pay, as are lawyers. Do you think a poor person arrested should not have any lawyer if they cannot afford one?

[_ajax18]

Do you have any specific examples? Hospitals are usually compensated by the government for those who cannot pay, as are lawyers.

If they are compensated, it's very poorly and really not worth their time. From a business standpoint, they'd be far better off refusing these customers. But these new laws keep popping up where you can't discriminate against nonpayers.

Do you think a poor person arrested should not have any lawyer if they cannot afford one?

Where are you from Themis, Great Britain or Australia? Do other countries provide everyone an attorney? The indigent defender situation is something that makes me question the entire adversarial system of justice.

Perhaps Sock Puppet would know more about this than me, but usually what happens is the judge tells the defendant, "You paid $1000 to bail yourself out of jail. Come back with a lawyer or you're going back to jail."