It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Have they actually been ordered to pay that amount by a judge yet?

Because I also agree it is way to high.

But the op doesn't say they have been ordered yet, or did I miss it?
edit on thWed, 08 Jul 2015 12:10:12 -0500America/Chicago720151280 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

That is a good question.

Maybe I am blind, but I read the article in the link a few times over and couldn't find where it said he lost the case or how much he was ordered to pay. The article was dated to 2013.

I didn't read through all of the comments so maybe that is where the OP is getting his info from. If this can't be verified the thread should probably be moved I think.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
For everyone who complained about "State Rights" with the Marriage ruling


At this time, the office of the Attorney General of Oregon is investigating the matter. In the state of Oregon, non-discrimination laws prevent public accommodations from being denied to any individual on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex [or] sexual orientation.


they went against state law, and just like other people who break the law they have to pay the consequence



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi

Glad you were able to decipher the typo, holy jebus phone.

Ya I haven't been able to find anything yet either, I always see those big numbers as attention grabbers and also shooting for the moon but will be happy landing on the stars. Which would be getting a Lowe number.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog
All other considerations aside, I would appreciate an explanation of how a six-figure fine is justifiable?


Let's compare:

DUI:

1st offense: $300 - $1,000

2nd offense: $600 - $1,000

3rd offense: $1,000 - $5,000

4th offense: $1,000 - $5,000


Refusing to bake a cake:

1st offense: $135,000



A fine example of tyranny.



I'd love to see where you got those DUI figures. Certainly not Texas where the first offense is generally $10k, loss of license for one year, and potentially jail time, although it is usually commuted to probation for first offense.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The article says the baker serves gays daily and chats to them also but refuses to make gay wedding cakes.


Gay wedding cakes aren't made. They are born that way.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I think I just confirmed it.

‘I refuse to comply': Owner of bakery fined $135,000 not intimidated by accompanying gag order

After reading the article I have zero sympathy for him now.

If what the article says is true then they are simply idiots that deserve to be over fined.

They have already violated a gag order. These people truly believe they are above the law.

As far as the money goes it looks like they have already raised that much or more from donations. It is good they have a surplus because they may need it to pay for breaking the gag order.


Idiots!!!!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: grimpachi
a reply to: Sremmos80

I think I just confirmed it.

‘I refuse to comply': Owner of bakery fined $135,000 not intimidated by accompanying gag order

After reading the article I have zero sympathy for him now.

If what the article says is true then they are simply idiots that deserve to be over fined.

They have already violated a gag order. These people truly believe they are above the law.

As far as the money goes it looks like they have already raised that much or more from donations. It is good they have a surplus because they may need it to pay for breaking the gag order.


Idiots!!!!


I don't think defying an unjust ruling, RE the gag order, is feeling that one is "above the law." The gag order was wrong and purely politically motivated. Why should they not have the right to talk about their situation and the court case--especially since everyone else can and has been?
edit on 8-7-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace

The word should be reclaimed. Like 'progressive' it isn't really descriptive.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi

www.continuetogive.com...

Ya looks like they are going to make some money off this.

Not sure why these business owners are getting mad about these incidents, seems every time it happens they make bank of donations.


I still find the 135k excessive though, but if they got that then they must of had a hell of a lawyer.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: NavyDoc

If I own a shoe store and a man comes in and asked to try on some ladies shoes and I refuse because I find it offensive then I have no business being open to the public. If the shoe fits properly, who am I to judge? If I walk into the bakery and ask them to make me a cake of crap and they refuse then that is proper, if I asked them to make me the same cake as they made for a friend of mine with only one minor change that has absolutely no bearing on the cake itself and I refuse because I disagree with the persons appearance or outward affiliation then shame on me.

Being in business comes with responsibility, if you are not capable of setting aside your own bigotry then you deserve to be put out of business. Keep your morals and your high falluting ideals of what is right or wrong in your back pocket or be prepared to empty said back pockets.

I want a cake in the shape of a gun and you won't make it for me, fine that is your right, I want a cake with gun shapes on it, that is your right to not make it without the shapes. You can not refuse to make me a cake because I am a gun advocate and you disagree.


You didn't answer the question at all. What damages did the complainant received that merited over a hundred thousand dollars and and want more damages?

You certainly can deny me services due to my politics--being a gun advocate is not a protected class. You an discriminate against me to your heart's content.


1) hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are worth a lot.

2) as long as nobody discriminates against you for being Doc.

Nobody messes with Doc.

Except his Marines


Hydrate Marine! Drink water and put on clean socks! That'll cure whatever ails ya!



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi

Some people fight and die, go to jail, for what they believe in.

Some people just b-itch on the web
edit on 123131p://bWednesday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

And some Ibuprofen 800 for what ever else right?

Or did the finally stop handing that out?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: LeatherNLace

The word should be reclaimed. Like 'progressive' it isn't really descriptive.


Well that is relative to what you think progress is...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

And some Ibuprofen 800 for what ever else right?

Or did the finally stop handing that out?

Motrin is still called "Marine Candy." (Or "Ranger Candy" dependent on service affiliation.)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

It's pretty common in athletic trainers' circles too as in, "Tape it, ice it, and take some ibuprofen for it."



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

It isn't being offended at everything and everybody suing everybody else for being ''offended''. A litigious society is not progress.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

That is you conception of what progressives are about.

In the context of this thread it isn't about just being offended, it is about civil rights.

Are you against civil rights?



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Are you against civil rights to freedom of belief?

Forcing Christians and Muslims to make gay cakes, black people to make KKK cakes might be your idea of progress and civility but it isn't mine.
edit on 8-7-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

In your private life no, when you extend that to discriminate in a public business yes.

Your rights end where mine begin.

No one is forcing this baker to abandon her beliefs, just offer a service to someone that she offers to everyone else.

I am also against hiding behind a false belief, nothing in the bible says you can't make a cake for a gay wedding.

And sorry that KKK cake was a fake.
So please stick to facts when making a case.
www.snopes.com...
edit on thWed, 08 Jul 2015 13:35:07 -0500America/Chicago720150780 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join