I can't remember which came first: An actual non-cake baking case or the conservative talk-o-sphere speculating that somebody might get in trouble for not baking a cake. Anybody know?

ETA: At least nobody has tried to marry a goat yet. At least I know where that one came from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudane...riage_incident

Incredible. I come up w/ something totally ridiculous and, sure enough, there it is.

Welcome to Obama's America.

To be fair, the goat was prob not American.

South Sudan borders Kenya though.

Ike's' stubbornness is going to kill a patient sooner or later. He just can't admit he was incorrect even after new information is found, often just doubling down on the first assertion.

Dude, you totally should have been a judge since you seem to be better at judging than the judge who judged this case!

The judge hasn't rendered a decision in this case. The fine of $135,000 was levied by the Oregon Labor Commissionser.

Your making stuff up. He is not defending the people, he's stating that fine is excessive. Out of curiosity, at what point do you believe the fine to be excessive? Maybe you believe that no fine imposed is enough IE the state can do anything it wants. Don't know.

Let's say you believe any fine over a $1,000,000 would be excessive and they were fined $2,000,000. If you believe that $2,000,000 is excessive then state that you believe it is excessive, are you defending the people's action? Of course not.

The final adjudication of this case will be interesting.

Yeah sure, adios. Of all the fines imposed on people, the one where we just HAVE to raise a fuss about determining the exact fair amount happens to be a case where a couple of bigots went on a relentless media campaign to shame and humiliate a gay couple who had the gall to ask for a cake. THAT'S where we need to make a stand, because abstract principles!

gmafb

God complex, always being right - stereotype anyway is that's par for the course.

First of all this type case gets a lot of publicity due to the nature of the violation (Oregon law violation), the controversy surrounding gay marriage, and recent court decisions. The vast majority of the Oregon Labor Commissioner decisions are not newsworthy. This one is thus people take note and comment on it. It is not really that hard.

Second of all you dodged my question. At what point do you think the fine is excessive? Put another way, why wouldn't something like $25,000 be enough to send the message to small businesses that they need to follow the law in Oregon or face a stiff fine? If $25,000 is too small an amount why is it? I haven't read anyone in this thread stating that there should not be consequences for violating the law but admittedly haven't read the whole thing. Just entering at the point of terrible arguments and Ike's trolling.

When Ikes and Adios find out out the egg shell skull rule, they are really going to lose their ****.

it gets a lot of publicity, yes, but typically parties to the case don't go phoning conservative radio hosts and give a bunch of interviews on friendly media outlets while there is pending litigation.

Its not a fine and the amount isn't punitive. Its direct compensation for emotional damage. The claimants sought 75k each for the actual denial of service initially and unspecified additional damages caused by the internet posting and media exposure (which they didn't get). I think its safe to say the best case scenario number for them was around 200k total which does not seem unreasonable to me in the context of how these sorts of things actually play out.

You first.

Lets say I wage a months long media campaign that leads to you being doxxed, having threats and genuinely fearing for your safety. This campaign of continued smearing also threatens an adoption, which is currently ongoing.

What amount do you think is fair? Why not more? Why not less?

They put out their personal info as part of a letter they received when they had 17 followers and removed it later. There's no evidence they published the person's info to point people to do them hard. They also didn't make their families ****s. They didn't make a cake, and had the audacity to complain about the government. That's protected speech man.

They also put on their own information about this incident on Facebook. Your claim just is not supported by the evidence.

I'm not sure that you understand what these words, when placed in this combination, mean.

Oh look, a nonresponse deflection attempt. It's ineffective. Keep trying to work backwards to support this outcome.

Your post didn't warrant a substantive response, because it was clearly wrong. The 20 pages or so of facts clearly support the assertion that the bakers did more than simply refuse to bake a cake. I actually quoted several passages confirming that, which you didn't even address. So it looks more like you are projecting here, maybe because you don't really have a substantive response to give yourself.

Aren't these fines also supposed to serve as a deterrent to offenders? If so, $100 is going to be a waste of time.

The death penalty isn't even a deterrent, lol fines.

Man, this "raised by wolves" syndrome appears to be communicable via internet.

Sweet, do you understand the arguments about why people say the death penalty isn't a deterrent?

The death penalty isn't a deterrent because those who'd qualify have woefully sick personalities, with maybe some cases sprinkled in there that involve heat-of-the-moment rage type scenarios. Either way, there's not going to be a lot of rational forethought going on.

Now, when you're talking about mentally healthy individuals and misdemeanor type offences, then yes, fines are effective tools.

For example, how much more often would you speed if I told you there was a zero percent chance of a fine?