Is it "persecution" when you go out of your way to make it happen?

[Jose Fly]

Remember the Kleins, the Christian owners of the bakery in Oregon who were found guilty of illegally discriminating against a same sex couple and fined $135,000? Well....

Sweet Cakes owners who refused to make same-sex wedding cake now refuse to pay $135,000 damages

The Oregon couple who made national headlines when they refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding are now refusing to pay state-ordered damages to the lesbian couple they turned away.

In response, state officials have gone to court to establish their right to place a property lien or attach other assets belonging to Aaron and Melissa Klein, proprietors of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery.

Now, before anyone argues that they can't pay the fine or that it would be an undue hardship on them...

"It's difficult to understand the Kleins' unwillingness to pay the debt when they have, very publicly, raised nearly a half million dollars," labor bureau spokesman Charlie Burr said in an email Wednesday.

So they raised more than three times the amount of the fine, which means they can't say they don't have the money, or that paying the fine would be a hardship. When asked, neither they nor their lawyers will give a reason. Now the state of Oregon is taking steps to place liens on their property and other assets, which I'm sure will generate cries of "persecution".

Thus my question...is it really persecution when you deliberately go out of your way to cause it? I don't think so.

And one other question: Does this mean the Kleins lied to the people who donated money?

 

[Huckleberry]

Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the story, but how did they go out of their to make it happen exactly? I think you should have established that in your OP somewhere.

 

[MortSullivan]

If the Kleins refused to bake wedding cakes for people who couldn't afford to pay them, would they be discriminating against poor people? I believe they would!

If I refuse to rent a house to Section 8 Tenants, am I discriminating against them? Yes - absolutely.

The question to be answered is whether or not we should be allowed to discriminate. And my answer is YES!

The fact is, we all discriminate all the time.

So what should be the consequences of discrimination?

 

[Tambora]

I hope the homos don't get a dime for this.

 

[MortSullivan]

I hope the homos don't get a dime for this.

Ironic that you would say this, and also be quoting Scripture.

 

[Huckleberry]

Okay, since a bit of Googling still doesn't seem to illuminate to me how the Kleins could reasonably be said to have "gone out of their way to make it happen", I'm going to try this:

If Mr. Klein opened a bake shop back in the 1950's and was a homosexual who didn't hide his sexual orientation, when folks inevitably found out and burned his bakery to down on the grounds that the man was obviously a dangerous pedophile*...could we reasonably say that Mr. Klein went out of his way to make that happen?

Maybe someone can explain to me how that's not at least a rough analogy.


*Commonly assumed of homosexual males in the fifties.

 

[MortSullivan]

Okay, since a bit of Googling still doesn't seem to illuminate to me how the Kleins could reasonably be said to have "gone out of their way to make it happen", I'm going to try this:

If Mr. Klein opened a bake shop back in the 1950's and was a homosexual who didn't hide his sexual orientation, when folks inevitably found out and burned his bakery to down on the grounds that the man was obviously a dangerous pedophile...could we reasonably say that Mr. Klein went out of his way to make that happen?

Maybe someone can explain to me how that's not at least a rough analogy.

Ummm... what?

 

[republicanchick]

Remember the Kleins, the Christian owners of the bakery in Oregon who were found guilty of illegally discriminating against a same sex couple and fined $135,000? Well....

["]Sweet Cakes owners who refused to make same-sex wedding cake now refuse to pay $135,000 damages[/URL]


Now, before anyone argues that they can't pay the fine or that it would be an undue hardship on them...



So they raised more than three times the amount of the fine, which means they can't say they don't have the money, or that paying the fine would be a hardship. When asked, neither they nor their lawyers will give a reason. Now the state of Oregon is taking steps to place liens on their property and other assets, which I'm sure will generate cries of "persecution".

Thus my question...is it really persecution when you deliberately go out of your way to cause it? I don't think so.

And one other question: Does this mean the Kleins lied to the people who donated money?

unbelievable how un-American this sounds!

You apparently don't care about FREEDOM... the freedom to do or not do something according to your conscience.

and as to answering your question:

Here is a passage from the Bible, which most Christians and Jews say is the Word of God

"If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before the Father"

"We must obey God rather than man"



to directly answer your Q in my words

You darned right it is persecution




++

 

[Huckleberry]

Ummm... what?

You don't think my Mr. Klein can be said to have "gone out of his way to make it happen" in the same way Jose implies the Kleins did in the OP? Feel free to explain how I'm grievously misinterpreting the OP, because I honestly don't see it.

 

[Lon]

Thus my question...is it really persecution when you deliberately go out of your way to cause it? I don't think so.

A 'hundred and fifty thousand?' Yeah, I think that is overt and irresponsible for conscientious objection. Jehovah Witnesses don't get that kind of 'persecution' for refusing the draft when it was in existence. There were 'examples' made. This is inordinate imho.

And one other question: Does this mean the Kleins lied to the people who donated money?

No. They didn't raise the funds to 'pay' the fine, but to fight it. It is, imho, unreasonable. If I 'purposely' break the law speeding, which does in fact endanger another's life, I am only 'fined' a couple of hundred bucks. Not baking somebody a cake gets $150k? Yeah, I think its out of whack. As an objector I must face societal consequence but this is near crucifying inordinate punishment. CPS would remove children from the home for this kind of overt punishment if done by parents.

 

[MortSullivan]

You don't think my Mr. Klein can be said to have "gone out of his way to make it happen" in the same way Jose implies the Kleins did in the OP? Feel free to explain how I'm grievously misinterpreting the OP, because I honestly don't see it.

I was saying that your post didn't make sense. Still doesn't.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I hope the homos don't get a dime for this.

:thumb:

 

[Rusha]

Remember the Kleins, the Christian owners of the bakery in Oregon who were found guilty of illegally discriminating against a same sex couple and fined $135,000? Well...

There is no cake on this earth that is worth $135,000.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the story, but how did they go out of their to make it happen exactly? I think you should have established that in your OP somewhere.

It's in the article linked to in the OP. In a nutshell, the Kleins owned a bakery, and a same-sex couple came in and wanted to order a wedding cake for their wedding. Aaron Klein told them they don't sell wedding cakes for same sex weddings, and told them they were an "abomination".

The couple filed a complaint with the state of Oregon, which ruled that the Kleins were in violation of Oregon law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and find them $135,000 (in part for making the names of the same sex couple public, thereby subjecting them to public harassment).

So the Kleins set up an account for people to donate money to them to help pay their fines and legal fees. They collected over $500,000. Since then however, they have refused to pay the fine and the state of Oregon has begun the process of placing liens on their property and other assets.

So the question is, if the state of Oregon begins seizing their property, can the Kleins truly cry "persecution"? All they had to do was pay the fine, which they raised more than enough money to pay. Not only that, but if they raised the $500,000 in part to help pay the fine, is it dishonest of them to keep the money and not use it to pay the fine?

 

[Jose Fly]

A 'hundred and fifty thousand?' Yeah, I think that is overt and irresponsible for conscientious objection. Jehovah Witnesses don't get that kind of 'persecution' for refusing the draft when it was in existence. There were 'examples' made. This is inordinate imho.

That's not the question at hand. They raised over $500,000 from donations, in part to help pay their fine. But they're refusing to pay the fine.

No. They didn't raise the funds to 'pay' the fine, but to fight it.

They solicited funds in part to help pay their fine. It's even on their website that "If they are forced to pay the damages to the lesbian couple they will be in much worse shape than they are now. "

It is, imho, unreasonable. If I 'purposely' break the law speeding, which does in fact endanger another's life, I am only 'fined' a couple of hundred bucks. Not baking somebody a cake gets $150k? Yeah, I think its out of whack.

For context, the same Oregon bureau fined an employer over $300,000 for illegally discriminating against a Christian employee because of his religion.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's in the article linked to in the OP. In a nutshell, the Kleins owned a bakery, and a same-sex couple came in and wanted to order a wedding cake for their wedding. Aaron Klein told them they don't sell wedding cakes for same sex weddings, and told them they were an "abomination".

Evidence for your claim in bold?

The couple filed a complaint with the state of Oregon, which ruled that the Kleins were in violation of Oregon law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and find them $135,000 (in part for making the names of the same sex couple public, thereby subjecting them to public harassment).

Again, false, the lesbians made it public which is why the public claim thing was rejected. The monetary damages were all do to "emotional suffering"

Commissioner Brad Avakian eventually rejected the agency’s theory of liability related to the media attention in his final ruling, but he upheld its recommendation on damages and ordered the Kleins to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering” that resulted from the unlawful denial of service.

So the Kleins set up an account for people to donate money to them to help pay their fines and legal fees. They collected over $500,000. Since then however, they have refused to pay the fine and the state of Oregon has begun the process of placing liens on their property and other assets.

You lie as usual, it was set up for legal fees and to help them live since they lost their business, and it was improperly yanked from go fund me, because a lesbian reported it as collecting fines, and go fund me changed their policy over it.

So the question is, if the state of Oregon begins seizing their property, can the Kleins truly cry "persecution"? All they had to do was pay the fine, which they raised more than enough money to pay. Not only that, but if they raised the $500,000 in part to help pay the fine, is it dishonest of them to keep the money and not use it to pay the fine?

yes, since personal property and business property are 2 different things.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evidence for your claim in bold?

I've posted it here before, but here you are once again...

"In a complaint to the state, a Portland lesbian couple said they attempted to order from Sweet Cakes, but were called "abominations unto the lord" after they were asked for the groom's name. "

Again, false, the lesbians made it public which is why the public claim thing was rejected. The monetary damages were all do to "emotional suffering"

Actually, it was Aaron Klein who posted the BOLI complaint, complete with the couple's names and addresses, to his Facebook page. But you are correct in that he was not fined for that. That was what precipitated the "gag order" that was a subject of a thread here a while ago.

You lie as usual, it was set up for legal fees and to help them live since they lost their business, and it was improperly yanked from go fund me, because a lesbian reported it as collecting fines, and go fund me changed their policy over it.

I just posted a quote from their funding website where they directly cite the fine as a reason for giving them money.

yes, since personal property and business property are 2 different things.

Well, I can't say it was any mystery where you would come down on this. You're one of the most tribal people I've ever seen.

 

[Lon]

That's not the question at hand. They raised over $500,000 from donations, in part to help pay their fine. But they're refusing to pay the fine.

:nono: You, and the labor arbiter are incorrect.

They solicited funds in part to help pay their fine. It's even on their website that "If they are forced to pay the damages to the lesbian couple they will be in much worse shape than they are now. "

lain: :sigh:

For context, the same Oregon bureau fined an employer over $300,000 for illegally discriminating against a Christian employee because of his religion.

Yep. Over-the-top. There should be a nominal fine, comparable to speeding in a car and endangering other's lives (if that fine doesn't conversely need to be raised). It is inordinate. Fine the person a fee both parties can live with and move on. $135,000 for a cake? :nono:

 

[Jose Fly]

:nono: You, and the labor arbiter are incorrect.

On what?

Yep. Over-the-top. There should be a nominal fine, comparable to speeding in a car and endangering other's lives (if that fine doesn't conversely need to be raised). It is inordinate. Fine the person a fee both parties can live with and move on. $135,000 for a cake? :nono:

I'm sure that's what you believe, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I've posted it here before, but here you are once again...

"In a complaint to the state, a Portland lesbian couple said they attempted to order from Sweet Cakes, but were called "abominations unto the lord" after they were asked for the groom's name. "

And the kleins said they never said such a thing, again where is your proof that was said and why do you think they would say that, when they already knew the client was gay and had served them tons of times in the past, just not for a gay wedding?

PS in your own article there:

"It's never been about sexual orientation," said Aaron Klein, who explained the couple who filed the complaint were actually return customers who had purchased a cake for a relative's wedding in the past.

"It's about marriage," Spriggs said.

"It's about marriage and the event," Aaron Klein said.

I seriously doubt the lesbians claim.