Bakers hit with $135k ruling...Go Fund Me shuts down fundraiser for them...

ThatRobGuy · Jul 6, 2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/25/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-online-fundraiser-_n_7139894.html

My apologies if this story has been discussed already, but even as a person who supports SSM, I have to think that some lines have been crossed here.

$135,000? Really Oregon?

Is this a fair ruling?...or does this just go to show that other people can abuse the legal system in the same way a person who sues McDonald's because they got fat does?

I'm sorry, but we're all adults here...is getting denied a cake really so "emotionally distressful" that it's work making that person pay you $135k???

There are people who physically assault others that don't end up with those kinds of rulings...my brother broke someone's nose in a fight and the ruling was for $3200.

On top of everything else, GoFundMe shut down the account for the bakers who were trying to raise money to cover their legal expenses.

As I stated, I have no qualms with SSM...however, this case appears to be less about making an example out of a "thought criminal" than it is about actually carrying out justice.

Thoughts?

brinny · Jul 6, 2015

I agree. It's OUTRAGEOUS that GoFundMe is "discriminating" against and "persecuting" in this manner. They should be brought to task on this waaaaaay over the line thing to do.

And thank you for your balance in seeing that this is an infringement of the worst kind. I don'y know what the policies are of GoFundMe, but is this something they have done before?

Thank you kindly.

ChristsSoldier115 · Jul 6, 2015

miniverchivi said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/25/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-online-fundraiser-_n_7139894.html

My apologies if this story has been discussed already, but even as a person who supports SSM, I have to think that some lines have been crossed here.

$135,000? Really Oregon?

Is this a fair ruling?...or does this just go to show that other people can abuse the legal system in the same way a person who sues McDonald's because they got fat does?

I'm sorry, but we're all adults here...is getting denied a cake really so "emotionally distressful" that it's work making that person pay you $135k???

There are people who physically assault others that don't end up with those kinds of rulings...my brother broke someone's nose in a fight and the ruling was for $3200.

On top of everything else, GoFundMe shut down the account for the bakers who were trying to raise money to cover their legal expenses.

As I stated, I have no qualms with SSM...however, this case appears to be less about making an example out of a "thought criminal" than it is about actually carrying out justice.

Thoughts?

Sounds like the couple suing has one heck of a lawyer.

Edit: What happens if someone is sued for an amount they cannot pay? Do they take payments or something? What happens if the person refuses to pay? jail time?

JustOneWay · Jul 6, 2015

miniverchivi said:
I'm sorry, but we're all adults here...is getting denied a cake really so "emotionally distressful" that it's work making that person pay you $135k???

Obviously, it was emotionally distressful enough for the bakers that they felt it necessary to deny a stupid cake.

That'll learn em for going against state laws.

pgp_protector · Jul 6, 2015

Go Fund Me Terms -> Terms

What's NOT Allowed

Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts

Edit:
Url wanted to display as Media

JustOneWay · Jul 6, 2015

pgp_protector said:
What's NOT Allowed

Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts

Or, in their words.... Satan LOL

Maybe they can beg in the streets?

Billnew · Jul 6, 2015

I believe the bakery closed.
I did notice the people say the judge is forcing the money to come from the couples accounts not the business accounts.
(unless they didn't have an LLC)
So even a business bankruptcy won't save them.

I hope this case goes to the SC. Of course the decision will be 5-4. Just not sure which way God Kennedy will decide. Do people have to check their bibles at the door or can they refuse to serve in some limited instances people?

No one ever said being a martyr isn't painful or costly.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 6, 2015

ChristsSoldier115 said:
Edit: What happens if someone is sued for an amount they cannot pay? Do they take payments or something? What happens if the person refuses to pay? jail time?

If the refuse, then they're in violation of a court order so the same penalties would apply...if you refuse, you could face jail time, but they typically try to exhaust every other option first...garnishment of wages, seizure of property, etc... before they lock you up.

Aryeh Jay · Jul 6, 2015

Billnew said:
I believe the bakery closed.
I did notice the people say the judge is forcing the money to come from the couples accounts not the business accounts.
(unless they didn't have an LLC)
So even a business bankruptcy won't save them.

I hope this case goes to the SC. Of course the decision will be 5-4. Just not sure which way God Kennedy will decide. Do people have to check their bibles at the door or can they refuse to serve in some limited instances people?

No one ever said being a martyr isn't painful or costly.

They are martyrs now? Doesn’t that diminish the sacrifice of the chaps that were thrown to the lions and died for their beliefs?

ThatRobGuy · Jul 6, 2015

pgp_protector said:
Go Fund Me Terms -> Terms

What's NOT Allowed

Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts

Edit:
Url wanted to display as Media

The beef they have with go fund me is that it was a civil case and not a criminal case (as the state wasn't formally charging them with a crime...the amount that was to be paid was to the lesbian couple and not to the state).

The lady explains her objection to GoFundMe shutting down her account...she wasn't raising money for legal defense, she was raising money help her family since her business had been shut down.

However, the go fund me aspect is really the least important part of this discussion.

I'm more concerned about the fact that someone having hurt feelings can result in another person's life being completely destroyed.

Even if you're a person who strongly supports SSM, and even if you're a fan of the idea that refusal of service should be criminalized, isn't punishment supposed to fit the crime?

Does a refusal of service really warrant the bakers having to transfer $135k over to the lesbian couple? Essentially, what it boils down to is that the Lesbian couple was insulted...and they had every right to feel insulted. The bakers essentially told them "we disagree with your lifestyle, so much so, that we'd rather refuse you service than make money"...it's a complete slap in the face...I get it. ...but $135K?!?!?!

Essentially this is going to ruin the lives of the bakers, and the Lesbian couple is going to be able to put down a 75% down payment on a nice home. (Which, I haven't ruled out the possibility of this being a case where the Lesbian couple was banking on this happening...literally "banking" on it)

If someone wants refusal of service to be illegal...that's fine, to each his own... How about a $1,000 fine? How about a formal citation from the city saying that "you've been warned, you have to comply with our city ordinance, or we'll yank your business license"...while I don't agree with those measures either...both are still far more fair and reasonable than forcing them to pay the couple 3 years of the average person's salary.

While I disagree with the actions of prohibiting free expression (meaning that I think a business owner should have the right to serve or not serve anyone they want for any reason they want...or no reason at all), even if you are a person who feels differently and wants the business owner to be forced to serve everyone, is a six-figure settlement to the people who were offended really a fair punishment?

Maren · Jul 6, 2015

miniverchivi said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/25/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-online-fundraiser-_n_7139894.html

My apologies if this story has been discussed already, but even as a person who supports SSM, I have to think that some lines have been crossed here.

$135,000? Really Oregon?

Is this a fair ruling?...or does this just go to show that other people can abuse the legal system in the same way a person who sues McDonald's because they got fat does?

I'm sorry, but we're all adults here...is getting denied a cake really so "emotionally distressful" that it's work making that person pay you $135k???

There are people who physically assault others that don't end up with those kinds of rulings...my brother broke someone's nose in a fight and the ruling was for $3200.

On top of everything else, GoFundMe shut down the account for the bakers who were trying to raise money to cover their legal expenses.

As I stated, I have no qualms with SSM...however, this case appears to be less about making an example out of a "thought criminal" than it is about actually carrying out justice.

Thoughts?

This has been discussed here before. Although it isn't typically mentioned in the articles, the $135,000 ruling was not for refusing to make a cake. Instead, the monetary ruling was due 1) to the Klein's releasing Bowman-Cryers personal information, including address, over the Internet causing harassment of the couple and 2) that they continued to state that they would continue to refuse service to same sex couples, even after it was ruled they were violating the law.

From Snopes: "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) and ordered the Kleins to cease offering any public suggestion that they might refuse service to same-sex couples in the future." You can find a link to the judges ruling in the Snope's article.

ChristsSoldier115 · Jul 6, 2015

Maren said:
This has been discussed here before. Although it isn't typically mentioned in the articles, the $135,000 ruling was not for refusing to make a cake. Instead, the monetary ruling was due 1) to the Klein's releasing Bowman-Cryers personal information, including address, over the Internet causing harassment of the couple and 2) that they continued to state that they would continue to refuse service to same sex couples, even after it was ruled they were violating the law.

That doesn't sound very Christ-like to me.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 6, 2015

miniverchivi said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/25/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-online-fundraiser-_n_7139894.html

My apologies if this story has been discussed already, but even as a person who supports SSM, I have to think that some lines have been crossed here.

$135,000? Really Oregon?

Is this a fair ruling?...or does this just go to show that other people can abuse the legal system in the same way a person who sues McDonald's because they got fat does?

I'm sorry, but we're all adults here...is getting denied a cake really so "emotionally distressful" that it's work making that person pay you $135k???

There are people who physically assault others that don't end up with those kinds of rulings...my brother broke someone's nose in a fight and the ruling was for $3200.

On top of everything else, GoFundMe shut down the account for the bakers who were trying to raise money to cover their legal expenses.

As I stated, I have no qualms with SSM...however, this case appears to be less about making an example out of a "thought criminal" than it is about actually carrying out justice.

Thoughts?

Yes..."this" probably has something to do with it.

Vylo · Jul 6, 2015

I would feel bad, but all they had to do was bake a cake, you know, their business.

HannahT · Jul 6, 2015

It is insane.

A drunk driver tore our finances and lifes apart, and we barely scraped even. During the whole ordeal - we barely made it. Thank GOD we had family helping us. I think we were ahead maybe $200 of all the costs we had. My husband has permanent injuries, and compensation for that? Nothing.

I guess I should have claimed 'emotional distress' huh?

I personally think the baker's actions were silly, but not worth $135,000.

pgp_protector · Jul 6, 2015

HannahT said:
It is insane.

A drunk driver tore our finances and lifes apart, and we barely scraped even. During the whole ordeal - we barely made it. Thank GOD we had family helping us. I think we were ahead maybe $200 of all the costs we had. My husband has permanent injuries, and compensation for that? Nothing.

I guess I should have claimed 'emotional distress' huh?

I personally think the baker's actions were silly, but not worth $135,000.

Sounds like you either had no lawyer or needed a better lawyer.

HannahT · Jul 6, 2015

We had a lawyer, but it was stupid kid that had nothing to his name.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 6, 2015

Maren said:
This has been discussed here before. Although it isn't typically mentioned in the articles, the $135,000 ruling was not for refusing to make a cake. Instead, the monetary ruling was due 1) to the Klein's releasing Bowman-Cryers personal information, including address, over the Internet causing harassment of the couple and 2) that they continued to state that they would continue to refuse service to same sex couples, even after it was ruled they were violating the law.

From Snopes: "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) and ordered the Kleins to cease offering any public suggestion that they might refuse service to same-sex couples in the future." You can find a link to the judges ruling in the Snope's article.

We can sort of discuss a few different aspects of this:

This one I'm calling Shenanigans on....

The Lesbian couple were the ones who filed suit...to claim emotional distress from a court case that you, yourself, instantiate is a bit odd to me. AK posted the complaint on his FB page, sure...however, that's nothing that you can't find on a public record search on any county court website. All you need to know is a last name and those website will bring up a full list of cases...each of which has court documents that have everything from financial information to addresses and phone numbers.

Last year, I found out how much one of the VP's from my company makes because he was going through a divorce and it's all public record (unless you specifically pay them to have certain information redacted).

If a person starts a lawsuit on this kind of matter, they know full well that there will be some sort of media circus to go along with it...and they go into it knowing that any documents submitted become public record. As I said, to claim emotional distress for something that you knew was likely going to happen prior to filing suit seems like they were in the hunt for some $$$.

The Kleins going in front of the public to defend their position and attack the credibility of the other side isn't anything special...look at any court case that has a lot of media attention, you'll see the same sort of behavior happening.

The other aspect of this is that simply posting negative things about another individual, online, has rarely ever led to an award of damages...much less $135K in damages.

I found a case where a lady posted a libelous review of someone's business...the business proved her claims to be false and was awarded $3,500

I found a case where a lady posted false allegations about her ex-husband, accusing him of domestic violence...the allegations were proven to be false, he lost his teaching job as a result of the allegations...he was awarded $12,500.

I found a case where the wrong man was listed on a local news stations website as a murder suspect, and they didn't promptly post a correction when they were alerted of their horrible mistake...the man was awarded $50,000.

So when looking at these sorts of figures, and the circumstances surrounding them, in this case $135k seems excessive.

Lie about a business intentionally to hurt them = $3500
Lie about your ex-husband and make everyone think he used to beat you to ruin his life/career = $12,500
Falsely accuse the wrong person of murder = $50,000
......
Post a copy of a complaint (which is already public record anyway) that was made about you on your own facebook page, and make a public statement stating that you stand firm in your original position = $135,000???

Something doesn't add up there...

That's why this makes me feel like either the couple was digging for gold, or the BOLI was aiming to make an example out of the bakery.

JustOneWay · Jul 6, 2015

Real simple - people who support the bakers....

Send them some of your money.

Vylo · Jul 6, 2015

HannahT said:
It is insane.

A drunk driver tore our finances and lifes apart, and we barely scraped even. During the whole ordeal - we barely made it. Thank GOD we had family helping us. I think we were ahead maybe $200 of all the costs we had. My husband has permanent injuries, and compensation for that? Nothing.

I guess I should have claimed 'emotional distress' huh?

I personally think the baker's actions were silly, but not worth $135,000.

I feel for you, same thing happened to my grandmother, she was left paralyzed. It pretty much ruined her life, and she got nothing from the driver.

Bakers hit with $135k ruling...Go Fund Me shuts down fundraiser for them...

Part of the IT crowd

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Mabaho na Kuya

:)

Noted strange person

:)

Legend

Part of the IT crowd

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Part of the IT crowd

Veteran

Mabaho na Kuya

Well-Known Member

Stick with the King!

Newbie

Noted strange person

Newbie

Part of the IT crowd

:)

Stick with the King!

Similar threads