Yet Another Fake Story from FOX “News” that WND Posts, Part 7: Oregon Anti-Gay Bakery Fine, WND Commenters Advocate Christian Jihad

Posted: February 5, 2015 in bat-s**t-crazy, homosexuality, religion
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I was waiting for this one since I read it on the Raw Story site earlier today: “Oregon Officials Rip Fox Contributor Todd Starnes for ‘False’ Reporting on Anti-Gay Bakery.”

The story on WND is found in Michael Brown’s “It’s High Time to Push Back Against Gay Activism.” Oh, and it specifically contradicts the actual potential fine reported yesterday by WND in “Bakery to Pay Same-Sex Couple Up to $150,000.”

The real story is this:

A state agency in Oregon called out the Fox News contributor’s erroneous reporting on a discrimination complaint filed by a same-sex couple who were denied service by a bakery.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found Monday that Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the state’s anti-discrimination law because it is not a registered religious institution.

The Portland bakery’s owners might be ordered to pay fines up to $75,000 to the women – but Starnes got some facts exactly wrong in his Fox News report, “Christian bakers face government wrath for refusing to make cake for gay wedding.”

Starnes incorrectly reported that bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein could face $200,000 in fines and damages – which an official with the BOLI flatly denied in a statement to Media Matters.

“Todd Starnes is writing that the bakery owners face fines of up to $200,000 in damages. That’s false,” said Charlie Burr, the agency’s communications director. “In fact, it’s the Kleins who have asked for $200,000 in damages from our agency for our enforcement of the Equality Act.”

An administrative judge rejected the couple’s request to dismiss the case and award them damages, court costs, and attorneys fees.

In other words, Starnes reported that the bakers were getting fined $200k, when in fact that was what THEY were trying to sue for. They may be fined up to $75k for each person they discriminated against, for their discrimination was ruled to be illegal because they violated the non-discrimination rules in their city/state.

Michael Brown, however, missed the memo:

On Tuesday, it was announced that “An Oregon administrative law judge ruled on Jan. 29 that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa did, in fact, discriminate in 2013 when they declined to provide a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because it would have violated their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage.”

The bakers could potentially be fined $200,000 for holding to their Christian convictions. $200,000!

I don’t think anything more needs to be said about this.

But, comments, well … it’s a bit early to judge what may happen, but as I write this, there are 7 comments. The top-rated is by “MichaelVWilson” and he wrote this diatribe:

Push back. How nice. What a bland, unimaginative, inoffensive phrase.

As an ex-Marine I’m a little more direct in my approach. 50 men, 25 with rifles to act as guards; 25 with sledge hammers as the wrecking crew. Go to a homosexual bar or bathhouse, destroy it with the sledge hammers, find a second homosexual business, rinse and repeat until none are left.

Christians are in a war against evil. Let’s act like it!

Can someone please, please tell me how this is any different from what many über-conservative, right-wing Christians in American argue against in terms of Islamic jihad? This man is literally calling for Armed Christian Soldiers to destroy property owned by people they disagree with for religious reasons, or operated along an ideology they disagree with for religious reasons. The only difference I see in this particular comment is that he does not seem to be advocating violence to people, only their property. Though the rifles and sledgehammers make me wonder what would happen if someone tried to block them.

The only kind voice currently has zero up-votes, by “RichardMcCarthy”: “Yes, indeed! Jesus did say “Push back!” Or, maybe, He forgot to say that? I’m pretty sure He did say “Love one another” – including your enemies and fellow sinners as He loved us (not so that they know they’re going to Hell).”

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Tea Partier says:

    I completely agree with the bakery on this case and all the many cases like it in our country. I think there is a big difference in discriminating against people of different races and discriminating against people that are actively practicing something that your religion says is wrong. I bet my hat (and i like my hate) that if an atheist couple came to this bakery asking for a wedding cake the bakery would have said “No”. Your desire to have a wedding and to have a cake at that wedding does not trump someone’s personal right (and protected right) of religious belief. I’m sorry, but as a Christian I would not want my wedding cake being made by someone who disagreed with me let alone force that person to make it anyway.

    Does it really mater? I mean, boo hoo you didn’t have that bakery down the road make your cake, a.k.a. the world didn’t revolve around you for once in your life. All this is about are two pig headed, spoiled rotten, stubborn ogre people not getting their way and so they sue over it, it’s disgusting and a disgrace to humanity. Please understand me, I’m not against gays, I have gay friends, if they want to get married, go ahead, I hope I get an invite. I am against people forcing their desires over other people’s rights. It is not a right to get married, if it were than the government would have to find everyone a spouse if that person wanted to get married but no boy/girl would even date them. If you want to get married then you have the right to be married but you still do not have the right to get married, there is a difference. It is, however, a right to have protected religious beliefs, and the fact that the government thinks you have to register in order to be considered a religious institution is outrageous! Who do they think they are? If you are a religious person and you own a religious company the government does not need to tell you that you are a religious company, get the heck out of the people’s business.

    The gay rights agenda has gone way too far here and I’m for gay marriage! It’s the fact that they think they have some special privilege to force people to bend to their will regardless of that person’s personal belief that I find ridiculous.

    Going into that ex-marines’ comment, what a moron! Destruction of property is a felony buddy, and to be a Christian and advocate violence against anyone or anyone’s property is a sin and completely opposite of what a Christian is supposed to do. Anger and hate are human traits, and Christians do indeed fall to them, but to categorize all Christians under the rantings of a few angry people that happen to be Christians is not the right thing to do either.

    • Stuart Robbins says:

      I’ve gone back-and-forth on this issue a lot over the last few years, and I’m really of two minds on it that sometimes disagree with each other. The first issue for me is similar to yours, really: Live and let live. A bakery won’t make my cake? Fine. I see a Jesus Fish outside a bakery, I’m probably not going to go in if I want a cake for a Darwin Day celebration (just an example that comes to mind, I’ve never really gone to a DD celebration or even had one).

      But on the other hand, it’s a VERY slippery slope when it comes to what’s classified as a “public accommodation.” I’ve laid this out in two different posts, here and here. Here’s what I wrote in the first one:

      You get the idea. Now, in fairness, I’ll repeat what I said before on this blog: I think that if you know a business, such as a cake-making bakery, is owned by anti-gay bigots, and you want a wedding cake for your same-sex nuptials, you probably shouldn’t go there anyway. As a public business and public accommodation, it is bound by public accommodation laws, but still, why go there if you think they might spit in the buttercream?

      But let’s change the scenario. Replace “cake-making bakery” with “Christian hospital, which is the only hospital within a 3-hour drive.” And replace “want a wedding cake for your same-sex nuptials” with “need an emergency appendectomy.” Shouldn’t that hospital be required to accommodate you regardless of their “sincerely held religious beliefs?”

      And, the second one:

      So, this is where I depart from perhaps my more liberal compatriots. Do I think people should be able to discriminate? No. You get into the slippery slope of letting them discriminate for “non-essential” services (wedding photography?) but not for “essential” services (hospital care?) but then needing to legally define whether every single service out there is essential or non-essential. It is much easier to just blankly say that public accommodations of any type can’t discriminate.

      That said, I kinda like “moms4patriots”‘s suggestion. The reason is that I don’t understand why, if you know someone is only giving you a service like this (such as wedding photography, or baking a cake) because they legally must, and there are dozens of other businesses out there that provide the exact same service that don’t hate you because they think their invisible sky fairy says they should, why go to them? Go somewhere else.

      So, how do we agree on what’s an essential service, even if it’s provided by a private company or family? We can all probably agree that hospitals are essential, and yet many are operated by Christians. Should they be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs? I think most would say “no.”

      What about a car mechanic? If they’re the only one in town, and they see an HRC or rainbow flag sticker on the bumper of a car, should they be able to deny service? Your car *might* make it to the next town over, but it might not.

      On the lower end, I agree that a bakery is not an essential service. I haven’t bought something from a bakery – other than when I was on vacation in Australia 13 months ago – in many, many years. But, do we really want a bureaucratic committee deciding every single kind of business as “essential” versus “non”?

      • Tea Partier says:

        Hmmm… I see your point.

        I just think that a little less regulations can be had without descending into the slippery slope. I mean, the place is called Sweet Cakes by Melissa, it is clearly a private company owned by Melissa and therefore I believe it should not be held to the “public accommodation” standards when they come to who you provide service to. Bars and beer distributors do this already. If someone comes into the bar or distributor it is the bartender’s or distributor’s legal discretion to sell them beer or not. Now obviously they will sell it to the person 99.9% of the time but if the person is already drunk or if the bartender questions their age (even though their ID says they are old enough) they can and will (and in my experience, have…shhhh don’t tell anyone) deny you the service. They can because alcohol is non-essential, I think it can also be said that cake is non-essential. Has this lawsuit been settled yet or is it still in court?

      • Stuart Robbins says:

        As I said, I think you either need a lot of regulations, or not (I do a lot of computer programming, so I liken this to *a lot* of if-else statements versus just one catch-all condition). While I agree that a cake shop is on that far end where I agree with you, there are a lot of in-betweens that are tricky, I think.

        As to the lawsuit, I think it’s been settled against the business owners. It’s now a question of how much compensation. As Judge Judy says, there are two parts to any lawsuit like this: First is the question of guilt/responsibility/etc.. Second is the subject of remedy. That’s where this is now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s