It's kinda obvious that they are both correct.

Low key are you actually arguing that this person suffered 135k in direct emotional damages?

Are you arguing that the cake they wanted to buy cost 135k dollars?

Amazing. Every time you face the slightest resistance in an argument you immediately devolve.

That's almost an answer. Thanks for participating.

no one thinks the cake is worth 135k.... what's your point?

Yeah that fine is preposterous lol

Is it all pain and suffering or is some punitive?

It's all pain and suffering.

Odds the award will be reduced on appeal, if not overturned as unconstitutional?

Don't worry, it'll get pled down?

dude, just stop posting and let goofy or elliot handle ikes. You're out of your element.

Reduced, like 97.2% or whatever. They clearly gave a punitive award even if they were unable to directly (I assume not).

Id be super surprised if there isn't a wide reaching state anti discrimination law they applied otherwise ikes would have read it on drudge and frantically posted about it. If so it won't be unconstitutional.

135k in punitive damages is still absurd. It's still a cake.
What? This case has been talked about for months, if not years. As to your analysis... lol wut? care to try again?

Jury awards that some ppl think are absurd happen all of the time and it is why lawyers would rather bring an injury case in The Bronx than in Manhattan where they stand a better chance of getting a larger pool of jurors that aren't business savvy or have a sense of the value of a dollar. That can be worded anyway someone wants to but it is a fact. So I will speculate (not really) that some jurors wanted to go low, some ridic high, and they settled on 135K so that they could go home. Maybe it gets reduced, maybe not but arguing that it's too high, too low is a waste of time except as an exercise in arguing the case in point.

There is no jury involved in this case.

OK, but just as poker players complain 'different floor, different day, different decision' the same can apply to judges.

Let's suppose the award was for a lesser amount: $1K or $5K. Do you consider those amounts absurd? I will get to the point: I think that if you answer 'no' you concede either that the plaintiffs suffered an injury and those amounts are reasonable or that it's a nuisance amount about which you don't care. If you answer 'yes' then you don't think the plaintiffs have a case at all.

That is my supposition, I don't mean to put words into your mouth, and you can reply if you care to.

That's a bunch of garbled nonsense. Under the law, they were clearly wronged. That doesn't mean I think the law is correct. 135k is ****ing absurd under any standard, much less that actual damages standard they used. Peace out hombre.

How much of the 135k was lawyer's fees?

Sounds like gay rights are creating jobs for lawyers. Checkmate, conservatives.

Oregon's Teacher of the Year spoke openly about being gay — and then he was fired

Getting fired and not getting a cake are equivalent in our crazy ass legal system.

School system should have settled for a cake and five grand in sprinkles.

Sprinkles are out they have trans fat.

Evidently the cake store owners published personal info of the couple on Facebook which led to them receiving death threats, so that probably contributed to the award: