“Put simply,” wrote Herbert Grey, the Kleins’ attorney, “they elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally protected conscience and religious beliefs.” --http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/02/gresham_bakery_says_oregon_con.html
In the fall last year, the Oregon Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, spoke about the states "goal" in the following comment.
"The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate," Avakian said. "For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon." --http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/08/lesbian_couple_refused_wedding.html#incart_most-comments
I think it is important to look into what some of the terms being used in this blog actually mean.
Rehabilitate - to bring (someone or something) back to a normal, healthy condition
Operant conditioning - a type of learning in which an individual's behavior is modified by its antecedents and consequences.
Discrimination - unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice
Prejudice -
- an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
- any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
- unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
And lets see what the Oregon law actually says:
Oregon Law 659A.403
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]
With that out of the way, lets see what is going on.
Oregon is claiming that the refusal to create and sell a wedding cake to a couple for their same-sex wedding violates the law. I would say they are referring to subsection 3. I will go out on a limb and say that the violation must be because the bakery does create and sell wedding cakes to couples for their weddings who are of opposite sex. There must be discrimination, right? I believe there is discrimination here and I will explain why.
Discrimination as defined is unfair treatment based on prejudice. And I listed three different definitions for prejudice above. I believe the state of Oregon is discriminating against Christians generally and the bakery specifically because of their unfair treatment of them based on unreasonable feeling, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding the religious beliefs that define the group. They are in effect stating that it is against the law to refuse to support same-sex marriage based on religious convictions and if you do not change and start supporting same-sex marriage you will be fined. Brad Avakian goes even further by saying that this belief and the actions taken by the bakery to remain true to that belief is "unhealthy" or "abnormal" when he says that the goal is rehabilitation.
I had always thought that it was considered very normal and healthy to stand up for what you believed in. I thought that was one of the things that made this country great. I guess he means that not supporting same-sex marriage is abnormal and unhealthy then. Yes it gets a little confusing, but I think that is because he (or the state of Oregon) is not really trying to rehabilitate this bakery. I think that if he said the goal was a type of operant conditioning, it would make more sense. I mean, they are trying to modify the behavior through by imposing sever consequences. They are not trying to restore some healthy or normal condition if their definition of those never existed in the first place.
Listen Oregon, the bakery is not creating and selling a cake that would be used to support a same-sex wedding. That is not discrimination. There is no prejudice and if there is no prejudice, then there is no discrimination. It is you who are practicing discrimination because of your unreasonable and hostile attitude against this bakery.
