Oregon bakery pays damages in lesbian wedding cake case

[Politically_Incorrect12]

The owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused on religious grounds to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple have paid about $144,000 in damages despite their ongoing appeal of the discrimination case, a state official said on Tuesday.



The damages were ordered after Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, refused to bake a cake in 2013 when Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer were planning their nuptials.



Aaron Klein handed the state a check for nearly $137,000 on Monday, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman Charlie Burr said. The payment was first reported by the Oregonian newspaper late on Monday.



The money was added to $7,000 received from the Kleins earlier this month through private collection efforts spearheaded by the state's Department of Justice, Burr told Reuters.
 

Read more at:  www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-bakery-pays-damages-in-lesbian-wedding-cake-case/ar-BBo1CDF?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Whether you agree with the case or not, $144,000 in damages seems ridiculously extreme.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Burr said the shop owners subsequently raised about $500,000 from supporters via an online crowdfunding effort.

My guess would be this is what got them in the hot seat.  It's hard to claim financial hardship when you are sitting on $500k.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2015 16:27:27 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Burr said the shop owners subsequently raised about $500,000 from supporters via an online crowdfunding effort.

My guess would be this is what got them in the hot seat.  It's hard to claim financial hardship when you are sitting on $500k.

They should have awarded them the exact amount the shop owners raised. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 29, 2015 16:21:40 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

The owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused on religious grounds to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple have paid about $144,000 in damages despite their ongoing appeal of the discrimination case, a state official said on Tuesday.



The damages were ordered after Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, refused to bake a cake in 2013 when Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer were planning their nuptials.



Aaron Klein handed the state a check for nearly $137,000 on Monday, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman Charlie Burr said. The payment was first reported by the Oregonian newspaper late on Monday.



The money was added to $7,000 received from the Kleins earlier this month through private collection efforts spearheaded by the state's Department of Justice, Burr told Reuters.
 

Read more at:  www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-bakery-pays-damages-in-lesbian-wedding-cake-case/ar-BBo1CDF?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Whether you agree with the case or not, $144,000 in damages seems ridiculously extreme.

cautionary tale.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 16:27:27 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Burr said the shop owners subsequently raised about $500,000 from supporters via an online crowdfunding effort.

My guess would be this is what got them in the hot seat.  It's hard to claim financial hardship when you are sitting on $500k.

Equally hard to justify payment of $144,000 in damages for this particular case.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 16:53:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 29, 2015 16:21:40 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Read more at:  www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-bakery-pays-damages-in-lesbian-wedding-cake-case/ar-BBo1CDF?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Whether you agree with the case or not, $144,000 in damages seems ridiculously extreme.

cautionary tale.

Still doesn't make it a less ridiculous amount for the issue....you know the whole "fair and just" punishment to fit the crime idea.

[chiver78]

Dec 29, 2015 17:00:06 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 16:27:27 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Burr said the shop owners subsequently raised about $500,000 from supporters via an online crowdfunding effort.

My guess would be this is what got them in the hot seat.  It's hard to claim financial hardship when you are sitting on $500k.

Equally hard to justify payment of $144,000 in damages for this particular case.

you must be unfamiliar with the term "punitive damages"

Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.

Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. The court may impose them to prevent under-compensation of plaintiffs, to allow redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system.[1] Punitive damages are most important for violations of the law that are hard to detect.[2] However, punitive damages awarded under court systems that recognize them may be difficult to enforce in jurisdictions that do not recognize them. For example, punitive damages awarded to one party in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.[3]

Because they are usually paid in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious. Punitive damages cannot generally be awarded in contract disputes. The main exception is in insurance bad faith cases in the United States, where the insurer's breach of contract is alleged to be so egregious as to amount to a breach of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," and is therefore considered to be a tort cause of action eligible for punitive damages (in excess of the value of the insurance policy).[4]

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 17:36:51 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Dec 29, 2015 17:00:06 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Equally hard to justify payment of $144,000 in damages for this particular case.

you must be unfamiliar with the term "punitive damages"

Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.

Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. The court may impose them to prevent under-compensation of plaintiffs, to allow redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system.[1] Punitive damages are most important for violations of the law that are hard to detect.[2] However, punitive damages awarded under court systems that recognize them may be difficult to enforce in jurisdictions that do not recognize them. For example, punitive damages awarded to one party in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.[3]

Because they are usually paid in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously insidious. Punitive damages cannot generally be awarded in contract disputes. The main exception is in insurance bad faith cases in the United States, where the insurer's breach of contract is alleged to be so egregious as to amount to a breach of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," and is therefore considered to be a tort cause of action eligible for punitive damages (in excess of the value of the insurance policy).[4]

I am familiar with the term, but I'm equally familiar with the term "common sense." 

[zibazinski]

Oregon is in desperate need of money to fund all the freeloaders.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2015 17:40:43 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 17:36:51 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

you must be unfamiliar with the term "punitive damages"

I am familiar with the term, but I'm equally familiar with the term "common sense." 

The bakery owners didn't understand "common sense". That's why "punitive damages" were necessary.

"Common Sense" would have dictated the following:

I (the bakery, and the owners by proxy) bake wedding cakes, I sell these cakes to the public, The state I operate/live in has an anti-discrimination law, people want to buy a wedding cake from me, I should sell them a wedding cake.

[chiver78]

Dec 29, 2015 17:40:43 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 17:36:51 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

you must be unfamiliar with the term "punitive damages"

I am familiar with the term, but I'm equally familiar with the term "common sense." 

well, unfortunately common sense isn't quite so common anymore. but frankly, I agree that punitive damages were appropriate in this case. so we probably aren't going to agree on much else.


sent from my electronic distraction

[Shooby]

Nothing like the fascist iron fist of the State. Well someday your business may be on the line of govt overstepping.

[fairlycrazy23]

I never saw where it was stated to be punitive damages.

[tallguy]

You all do know that it was not a $135,000 fine just for not baking a cake, right?

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2015 21:00:10 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Nothing like the fascist iron fist of the State. Well someday your business may be on the line of govt overstepping.

You might have a point... if there was (even in a figurative sense here) a "fascist iron fist of the State" doing anything... too bad for your point that there's not.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 29, 2015 17:01:21 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 16:53:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

cautionary tale.

Still doesn't make it a less ridiculous amount for the issue....you know the whole "fair and just" punishment to fit the crime idea.

according to many here, fair and just would mean that the case was thrown out.

according to many here, something in excess of the $500k she collected from her crowdfunding would be fair and just.

given those two facts, an amount falling roughly between those two numbers seems fair and just to me.

[Deleted]

I think "fair and just" would have had the entire "crowdfunding" amount converted into a trust fund to assist low income homosexual couples with the costs of getting married... including the purchase of elaborately decorated wedding cakes.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 21:42:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You all do know that it was not a $135,000 fine just for not baking a cake, right?

There is a such thing as excessive, but I guess in this case many on this board feel that it was not. I disagree with the amount, and also disagree about how much actual "harm" occurred because of the instance.

[Opti]

Maybe there was more harm than simply not getting the cake...

The lengthy ruling described incidents wherein the Kleins' promotion of their plight resulted in negative attention and threats to the Bowman-Cryers, including Klein's publication of court documents to Facebook that included the couple's home address. Contrary to many descriptions of the issue, no "gag order" was put in place that prohibits the Kleins from publicizing or talking about their case;

www.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I don't know how damages are calculated so I have no opinion on whether or not the amount was excessive or not.

I just think it backfired on them to cry poor.   I think it would have made more sense for their lawyer to try to offer a settlement out of that $500k rather than keep pushing until the courts decided how much they should pay.  It would have hurt but they could have moved on with their lives by now.

This case goes back to 2013.  I imagine a lot of that six figure settlement is court costs and lawyer fees.   Then the article also mentioned late fees are piling on b/c the couple refuses to pay.

They're digging their own grave at this point, IMO.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2015 8:46:14 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 21:42:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You all do know that it was not a $135,000 fine just for not baking a cake, right?

There is a such thing as excessive, but I guess in this case many on this board feel that it was not. I disagree with the amount, and also disagree about how much actual "harm" occurred because of the instance.

how familiar are you with this case from the PLAINTIFFS perspective?

[tallguy]

For those who somehow still don't know:

In one instance getting national attention, Candace Cameron Bure and Raven-Symone had a heated exchange this week when the case against Sweet Cakes by Melissa was discussed on The View. Bure presented the case as a miscarriage of justice, saying that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had a right to freedom of association.

“It’s about constitutional rights. It’s about First Amendment rights. We do have the right to still choose who we associate with,” Bure said.



But those casting this as a purely LGBT-vs-bigots fight are missing a big chunk of the issue. True, as Raven-Symone pointed out, “The Oregon law bars businesses from discriminating against sexual orientation, race, disability, age or religion.”

But the lawsuit brought against Sweet Cakes by Melissa was not just about that. When the bakery refused to serve them as customers, the plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, rightly brought a complaint to the Department of Justice and then with the Bureau of Labor and Industries.



But when that complaint was filed, a copy was emailed to the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whereupon they posted the complaint to their Facebook page. The contents of that complaint are the rub.

The names, home address, and email address of the plaintiffs were in that post.

The Bowman-Cryer couple received death threats as a result of that post. The foster children they were trying to adopt were at risk of being taken away from them because the state adoption agency told them they were responsible for keeping the threats at bay and their confidential information out of the hands of those who might endanger the children.

Thus the lawsuit. In the end, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer were awarded a judgment for $135,000, not as fines or civil penalties against Sweet Cakes by Melissa, but for the “emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination.”

So framing the award to the lesbian couple as some persecution for being Christian is way wrong. Those people put the couple and their children in danger. That’s why they were ordered to pay up.

link

I will agree that most of the reporting on this story has been lazy and did not go into detail other than, "Bakery fined for refusing service."  That is NOT the entire story.  

[tallguy]

Sugar, flour, eggs and water are now munitions in America's culture war. Or so you'd think from two Oregon bakeries that recently got national attention for declining to make cakes for same-sex weddings.

The first incident, in February (2013), involved Gresham's Sweet Cakes by Melissa, whose owner told a lesbian couple that "we don't do same-sex marriages." Earlier this month, Pam Regentin, who operates Fleur Cakes out of her home in the Hood River area, also refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

Both bakeries cited their religious beliefs as the reason they would not make the cakes. Both describe themselves as Christian.

Jesus, of course, never commented on gay people, but did tell his followers to "love your neighbor as yourself." Instead, the widely cited Bible verse condemning homosexuality comes from Leviticus, a book that also prohibits getting tattooed or eating rabbit.

"I believe I have the liberty to live by my principles," Regentin told KATU in a May 15 newscast.

By law, that may not be true. Oregon statute makes it illegal for businesses to turn away customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation. A lawyer for the couple turned away by Sweet Cakes says they are exploring their options.

We wondered what other requests these cakemakers would decline to honor. So last week five WW reporters called these two bakeries anonymously to get price quotes for other occasions frowned upon by some Christians. Surprisingly, the people who answered the phone at each bakery were quite willing to provide baked goods for celebrations of divorces, unmarried parents, stem-cell research, non-kosher barbecues and pagan solstice parties.

We later contacted both bakeries to ask about these inconsistencies. Regentin declined to comment beyond asking whether she had been taped (she had not).

Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we "would even try to entrap a business"€ and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson.

link

For those who wondered in the past about whether this bakery would make cakes for other "Un-Christian" things....   "We can definitely do something like that."  (Quotes from the exchange about each request are in the article.)  

[chiver78]

TG, is it wrong of me to be incredibly shocked that Candace Cameron Bure could stand to be on the same stage as Raven-Symone?     FWIW, I loved both of them when I was a kid. I'm sad to see that Candace has followed in her brother's footsteps in being ultra-religiously conservative. ick.

[tallguy]

I'm probably the wrong one to ask.  I have no idea who either of those two are. 

Trust me when I say it may not be possible to find anyone less interested in "celebrities" than I am.     

[chiver78]

Dec 30, 2015 21:40:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I'm probably the wrong one to ask.  I have no idea who either of those two are. 

Trust me when I say it may not be possible to find anyone less interested in "celebrities" than I am.     

for real?    how old ARE you?

Candace Cameron Bure was DJ Tanner on Full House, and Raven-Symone was on the Cosby Show back in the day, as Olivia Kendall. both were absolutely recognizable to anyone watching network television back in the day. please google both and look at dated pics that will pop up. I'll be shocked if you don't recognize both of them.

back to my comment, though. CCB has grown up to be as ultra-conservative as her also-public brother Kirk (of Growing Pans fame). Raven-Symone has recently come out, after myriad quotes to the effort of keeping her private life private. given some of the BS I've heard from Kirk, I'm actually quite surprised to know they share a stage.

[zibazinski]

I only know CCB from her made for TV movies. The other one I wouldn't recognize if she was standing up holding a sign around her neck. Some of her comments seem a bit off but I figure she's a has been looking for attention. CCB is at least attractive.

[zibazinski]

What in heavens name is anyone conservative or religious living in Portland? One of the most uber liberal cities in an uber liberal state. Fish out of water. This can't have come as a surprise.

[tallguy]

Never watched Full House.  Isn't that the one Bob Saget was on?  Couldn't stand him.  Didn't think his stand-up comedy was any good and HATED even the idea of his videos show.  (Rivals only awards shows, soap operas, and infomercials for the most worthless things ever aired.)  And I do remember the annoying newest "add-on" to The Cosby Show.  Never liked that character either.  That was her, right?   

[chiver78]

Dec 30, 2015 22:06:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Never watched Full House.  Isn't that the one Bob Saget was on?  Couldn't stand him.  Didn't think his stand-up comedy was any good and HATED even the idea of his videos show.  (Rivals only awards shows, soap operas, and infomercials for the most worthless things ever aired.)  And I do remember the annoying newest "add-on" to The Cosby Show.  Never liked that character either.  That was her, right?   

yes, and maybe. I'm not sure when Olivia was introduced in the timeline with other serial regulars. she was the toddler, if that helps your own timeline.