GRESHAM, Ore. -- A Gresham baker is the subject of a state investigation after he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Did Sweet Cakes owner Aaron Klein violate the law when he told the couple that he couldn’t sell them a cake because “they were abominations to the Lord?”
That’s what Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement officers are looking into after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint on Jan. 28.
The woman who filed the complaint said she had previously bought a cake from Sweet Cakes for her mother’s wedding. It was fine. But when her partner went back for their wedding cake on Jan. 17, the owner refused.
Klein on Friday denied making the harsh statement, but admitted to a KATU reporter on camera that he did deny her service.
“I apologized for wasting their time and said we don’t do same-sex marriages,” he said. I “honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn’t mean to make anybody upset, (it’s) just something I believe in very strongly.”
But beliefs aren’t enough to cover him under state law. The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 prohibits discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The statute includes public accommodations, such as businesses.
Klein emphasized the importance of his religious beliefs, saying it outweighs his bottom line and the state law.
“If I have to be to, I guess, be penalized for my beliefs, then I guess, well, that’ll be what it is,” he said.
The question now: whether his constitutional rights outweigh state statute.
“My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it,” Klein said.
We asked Portland attorney Paula Barran whether this case falls under the 2007 statute. She said it did, but added that she did not know how the owner’s religious beliefs would factor in.
“Statutes don’t get to overcome constitutional protections, so if somebody had a religious-based reason for wanting not to trade with somebody, I think you have a really interesting test case for whether or not a statute like this can apply,” Barran said.
There is no exception under the state's anti-discrimination law for religious beliefs. Ultimately, the case would be up for a judge to decide.
The woman who filed the complaint declined to comment to KATU until she receives further legal advice.
But, seriously, it seems like the appropriate remedy here would be for gays and gay supporters to just not frequent the bakery, in lieu of sicking the government on the baker for exercising his own first amendment rights.
I figure we're about five years away from the homosexual lobby criminalizing anyone criticism of gays even by religious organizations.
Gays seem to not understand the concept of free speech. If this guy doesn't believe in gay rights or want to endorse the lifestyle by baking gay-event cakes, that is certainly his right, whether gays like it or not.
I did a Google search under gay cake, and there was certainly plenty to see. Some of it playful, some of it creative, some of it downright offensive.
Would that gays exhibited the tolerance for conservative free speech that we allow them.
On the one hand, the baker could have refused and stated that he's got other stuff and can't take orders at the moment - instead he had to go and say that he's not taking their business because he disapproves of their lifestyle.
The gay couple could have just went to a different baker and just let the baker suffer loss of future business, but no - they had to drag the courts into it.
Way I see it, both sides wanted to get back at the other for not accepting their beliefs.
The baker may want to read up on the sin of gluttony and think about a new career if he's worried about passively endorsing a same-sex wedding. While I think the baker is probably picking and choosing amongst biblical sins, he does have the federally protected right to do so. The gay couple should have just found another bakery instead of letting this probably ruin their wedding.
The baker may want to read up on the sin of gluttony and think about a new career if he's worried about passively endorsing a same-sex wedding. While I think the baker is probably picking and choosing amongst biblical sins, he does have the federally protected right to do so. The gay couple should have just found another bakery instead of letting this probably ruin their wedding.
Or they could just simply respect his beliefs, and find another baker for their wedding cake.
That's the beauty of liberal intolerance. No one else's beliefs are valid but theirs. And yet they paint conservatives (who don't share, but still tolerate THEIR beliefs) as intolerant. Irony, that.
Did you even read my post? I ask since I suggested that the couple should have went to another baker.
Here's what you posted.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The baker may want to read up on the sin of gluttony and think about a new career if he's worried about passively endorsing a same-sex wedding.
While I think the baker is probably picking and choosing amongst biblical sins, he does have the federally protected right to do so. The gay couple should have just found another bakery instead of letting this probably ruin their wedding.
I split your comment in two, because the two halves of what you posted don't seem to project the same message.
The first half sounds rather intolerant of the baker's beliefs, stating basically that if he doesn't share the beliefs of gays he should find another profession.
The second half does, as you say, allow for the baker's right to serve who he wants. But you do project two conflicting ideas of tolerance/intolerance for his beliefs.
State: Gresham bakery discriminated against same-sex couple; hearing set for March
Quote:
Posted: Feb 02, 2015 5:23 PM EST Updated: Feb 02, 2015 7:14 PM EST
By Staff and AP reports
GRESHAM, OR (KPTV/AP) - A hearing is scheduled in March to determine how much in damages two bakers owe a lesbian couple for refusing to bake them a wedding cake. An administrative law judge has rejected Sweet Cakes by Melissa's contention that the state's discrimination laws don't govern their refusal because it was on religious grounds.
Two years ago, the couple filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice when Sweet Cakes co-owner Aaron Klein said, "We don't do same-sex marriages."
Klein and his wife, whose bakery has since closed up shop but appears to still take online orders, do not hide their religious beliefs. The Sweet Cakes website says they "strongly believe that when a man and woman come together to be joined as one, it is [truly] one of the most special days of their lives."
In the two years since the initial complaint, the state has ruled in favor of the same-sex couple and said the Gresham bakery violated their rights. Monday's interim order for the Bureau of Labor and Industries echoed that position, and found the bakery unlawfully discriminated against the couple by not giving them "full and equal access to a place of public accommodations."
Under Oregon law, Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion.
So much for Constitutionally protected religious freedom.
There's a difference between refusing to serve two gay men or two lesbians lunch, and forcing someone against their beliefs to cater or photograph a gay wedding.
I'd put the latter in the same category as forcing a Jew or Muslim to eat pork, or forcing a Hindu or vegetarian to eat beef.
The bakers refused service because the customers were gay, correct? I could understand if the customers had requested something pornographic on the cake but it sounds like the bakers automatically denied service on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. Imagine how much you would holler if you were denied service because of what ever religion you claim to be?
The bakers refused service because the customers were gay, correct? I could understand if the customers had requested something pornographic on the cake but it sounds like the bakers automatically denied service on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. Imagine how much you would holler if you were denied service because of what ever religion you claim to be?
No!
If they were gay and were simply having a birthday party or Christmas party, the bakers I'm sure would have catered without a second thought. There was a specific type of event they didn't want to endorse, because of their religious beliefs opposing that specific event they were asked to cater.
If Council On American Islamic Relations (CAIR) had an office party, I'm confident the bakers would cater it. If they wanted these bakers to cater a political event for rallying to impose Sharia law, the Christian bakers would likely refuse that too.
You seem blind to the fact that it is not a refusal to serve gays per se in any circumstance, but only that their beliefs prohibit them from endorsing this specific event of participating in a gay marriage.
If gay bakers were forced to cater a defense-of-marriage rally, they'd likely put HIV-infected blood in the icing, if forced to cater the event.
Comments where you imagine gays likely doing that besides, being batshit crazy, also illustrates you don't really have much of an argument. A sale simply doesn't equate to an endorsement. This was tested legally and considering your party is pretending it's more gay friendly, it's not going to change anytime soon.
It's a clash between two lifestyles refusing to budge an inch and demanding they get their way. It's kind of sad the two groups couldn't have worked this out.
Asking (or, in this case, demanding) that they provide a service that directly supports the event qualifies as an endorsement.
They've already stated that they have no problem selling them other types of cakes.
I feel like we've had this conversation before with you claiming that people have some sort of constitutionally established right to demand vendors provide services regardless of their own prerogative. It was retarded then, and it's retarded now.
Well guess you can feel anyway you want Pariah. There is of course the reality. See the various court rulings. You and WB are of course entitled to your opinions/feelings.
Asking (or, in this case, demanding) that they provide a service that directly supports the event qualifies as an endorsement.
That.
All this ruling proves is liberals partisanly dominate the courts, regardless of, and actually contemptuous of, actual law or justice.
And to borrow a phrase from Greg Gutfeld: "homo-phobia phobia". Moderates and conservatives caving in out of fear of being called homophobic, rather than standing for what they know is religious freedom, and right.
Pretty sure an endorsement has something about doing it of your own free will. The law is mandating them to treat all customers equally. It's not an endorsement.
Does it REALLY sound acceptable to you to force a Christian bakery to cater a gay event against their will, when the gays in question could have chosen hundreds of other bakers who don't have the same religious convictions?
What purpose does it serve, other than to rightly stoke conservative rage?
Personally I wouldn't waste or give my business to people like that. Forcing them to treat people equally is ok though. If they don't like it the husband can always get his wife fitted with a burca and move to one of the countries that share their values.
Abortion is an ongoing battle. Gay marriage is an ongoing battle.
It is, in fact, gays who are being intolerant in this current political battle, forcing their beliefs on others, rather than allowing each respective group to follow their own respective beliefs. Homosexuality is not like racial discrimination. Homosexuality is a belief system, that a Supreme Court justice said (of homosexuality, under the umbrella of secular humanism it is an attack arm of) that it is as much a faith-based belief system as Christianity.
To date, there is no proof that homosexuality is a natural or a biological/genetic inborn condition, and not just an aberrant desire that some choose to act on. Therefore gays/liberals should not have the right to tell the 78% of America that is Christian, or the over 90% of America that more broadly believes in God (combined Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.), that they have to let gays' nonfactual unfounded beliefs be forced down their collective throats, and be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings their teachings clearly condemn as immoral.
...unless, of course, the customer has no tolerance for the views of the one(s) providing the service.
Resorting to legalism only makes you look even more like a tard--especially since these bakers (and the photographers in San Francisco who were coerced to close up shop) are being victimized in the same way that you claim homosexuals are/were being victimized.
The man has politley asked people to not bring a gun to his coffee shop,SO DON'T BRING A GUN INTO HIS SHOP! Why does this have to be such a big deal for some people?
For the same reason gays have a hissy fit when somebody doesn't want to bake them a wedding cake I guess.
It looks like you guys are the ones having the hissy fit over a company just asking people not to bring their guns into their place of business. I doubt most gun owners actually feel their right to own a gun includes being able to carry them into other people's private homes and companies.
In which case, if a business should have the right to refuse service to someone pursuing the legal practice of gun carrying/ownership. Then they should, furthermore, have the right to refuse service to anyone on whatever grounds they personally find relevant to their own moralities, yes?
Here's the problem with G-man's comparison. Starbuck's didn't refuse service to the gun nuts so there wasn't any discrimination. Your problem is you don't like that somebody politely asked customers not to bring their guns into their place of business. Not banned just a request.
Uh-huh. And if a cake maker politely requested that homosexual couples not walk into his or her store looking for wedding cakes for a same-sex unions, would you be as cool with that as you are with this?
Of course, as one would expect, MEM deigned not to reply to that.
I would prefer that homophobes self identify themselves. As I've said before I would just take my money elsewhere. Them making it easier is all good in my book.
1) There are literally hundreds of other bakers they could have gotten their cake from.
2) There is no proof that homosexuality is a natural, genetic, inborn or otherwise natural basis for its existence to be protected, and I've cited the studies repeatedly. Until at least 1973, and in many parts of the world the 1980's and later, it has been diagnosed as an obsessive disorder, like pedophilia, sadomasochism, foot fetishism, gambling or substance addiction. And in many places, 10 to 20% of psych professionals in the U.S. who belong to NARTH, still is treated as a disorder.
3) Religious freedom. You don't force Muslims or Jews to eat pork. You don't force Hindus or vegetarians to eat meat. Again, if gays had just wanted a birthday cake or a cake for some other holiday or event, the Christian bakers would no doubt have gladly obliged them. They only exercised their freedom to not endorse this specific event.
4) The first Amendment:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,; or the thright of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Read it. Learn it. LIVE it.
The problem with gay Nazis is they think that only they have rights to free speech, and that anyone who disagrees with them should be silenced. It doesn't work that way. Gays have a right to their beliefs and lifestyle, despite those who disagree with them. Christians have a right to their beliefs and lifestyle, despite those who disagree with them.
You really need to learn to respect the beliefs of those who tolerate yours.
Just a question to set things in perspective, if a straight couple ordered a cake for a gay wedding from the Baker, would he have done it? Or vice versa, if a gay couple (i don't know how he would know. Maybe they're blowing each other while coming through the door) orders a normal wedding cake, would he have done it?
also, disregard my question. I just wanted to post something about people blowing each other while entering an establishment. It seems like a cool thing to do.
I would prefer that homophobes self identify themselves. As I've said before I would just take my money elsewhere. Them making it easier is all good in my book.
Not surprised that you completely avoided the issue, but the subtext is clear: you do not acknowledge the unconstitutional nature of forcing a private entity to provide services for others against its/his/her will.
When you open the door to the public you shouldn't treat customers unequally based on sex, religion, race or sexual orientation. I think that's a good principle and the law respects that. If a private entity is so sensitive that seems unreasonable than that is and should be their problem.
also, disregard my question. I just wanted to post something about people blowing each other while entering an establishment. It seems like a cool thing to do.
that isn't even in the top five reasons you're not allowed back in my store, you sick bastard.
Just a question to set things in perspective, if a straight couple ordered a cake for a gay wedding from the Baker, would he have done it? Or vice versa, if a gay couple (i don't know how he would know. Maybe they're blowing each other while coming through the door) orders a normal wedding cake, would he have done it?
Originally Posted By: Son of Mxy
also, disregard my question. I just wanted to post something about people blowing each other while entering an establishment. It seems like a cool thing to do.
I meant to answer this before, but I've been rather busy. I think I covered it when I said above that if gays just came in to order lunch or a birthday cake, and were refused service solely on the basis of their being gay, that would be discrimination. It not because of being gay they refused service, but because of a specific cake they were asked to make for an activity that diametrically opposed the bakers' Christian beliefs. That is religious freedom. Regarding "how did they even know it was for gays?", the couple requested it for a lesbian service.
If Satanists came in and just ordered a "Happy Birthday" cake for a friend, I'm sure the Christian bakers (probably not even knowing) would comply with a conventional request. If they requested a "Hail Satan" cake, the Christian bakers would similarly refuse, based on the fact they strongly oppose that religious viewpoint.
That is not discrimination. It's religious freedom.
I have even more respect for Baronelle Stutzman after seeing her interviewed on Megyn Kelly:
She is exceptionally respectful and reasonable in her arguments, without the slightest trace of anti-gay zeal. She very respectfully refused very specific business, that she would otherwise take from gay customers for birthdays or other occasions.
And she even referred the customers she declined to several other bakers, who WOULD bake the cake for them.
The government clearly has no reasonable basis for levelling charges, beyond intimidating her into endorsing gay marriage, otherwise they would not be so eager to drop the charges in exchange for her endorsing gay marriage. She is very courageous, risking her business to take a principled stand.
The Colorado Civil Rights Division has ruled that a baker who refused to make cakes with anti-gay messages did not discriminate.
Marjorie Silva, owner of Azucar Bakery in Denver, says she got the news on Friday but knows that Bill Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, Colo., will likely appeal the decision.
“I’m happy that we were not just morally right but legally right,” she said in an interview with Yahoo News. “Hopefully this will lead to a better world where we are friendly to each other.”
In March 2014, Jack asked Silva to make him a Bible-shaped cake with anti-gay messages, such as “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.” He also wanted the cake to include two men holding hands with a large X over them.
She agreed to make the dessert in the shape of a book but declined to include the hateful content.
That actually adds to baker Marjorie Silva's even-handedness. Even as a Christian who isn't a fan of gay marriage, Silva declined to bake this cake:
Quote:
In March 2014, Jack asked Silva to make him a Bible-shaped cake with anti-gay messages, such as “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.” He also wanted the cake to include two men holding hands with a large X over them.
I think that's inappropriate and just plain mean to put on a cake. And so did Silva.
False equivalence. If somebody came into my theoretical bake shop and wanted a cake with "fat greedy republicans have no souls" on it, I would have the right not to do it.
Just to be clear, I'm totally fine if you rut in your ignorance. It simply doesn't matter because the law does make a distinction no matter how much you deny it. I'm also fine if the republican party continues to support discrimination as it fools less and less as time goes by. Reap what you sow time I think.
If the Christian baker isn't allowed to refrain from printing a message on the cake because the state considers it discrimination, then the vice versa scenario is also true for the same-sex marriage detractor's message being rejected by another baker.
Just because the law makers haven't caught up with the logic of the law doesn't mean that you're in the right by virtue of a judge siding with you on it.
Patrick Stewart defends Christian bakers in 'gay cake' controversy
Actor and activist Sir Patrick Stewart has revealed that he supports the right of Christian bakers to refuse to make cakes they find offensive.
Last month, the owners of Ashers Baker in Northern Ireland were found guilty of discrimination after they refused bake a cake that a carried the slogan "Support Gay Marriage", alongside an image of Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie.
"It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them," he said. "It was the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they found the words offensive
• The 'gay cake' ruling against a Christian bakery could lead to even more discrimination
"I would support their rights to say no, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it."
The McArthur family were fined £500, though they have said they will appeal the decision.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site
PORTLAND, Ore. - The Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple is breaking records with its crowdfunding campaign.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was kicked off GoFundMe earlier this year, but has since raised more than $350,000 on the crowdfunding site Continue to Give. The growing total, which far exceeds the couple's $150,000 goal, is the largest individual campaign in the history of the three-year-old site, the Washington Times reported. The couple previously netted more than $60,000 from Go Fund Me before that campaign was taken down.
The founder of Continue to Give, Jesse Wellhoefer, said he refused to remove the Sweet Cakes campaign despite "lots and lots" of complaints, according to the Washington Times.
The bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, were ordered to pay the couple $135,000 in damages, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled July 2.
Aaron Klein said he has no plans to stop the Continue to Give campaign and there is no end date set.
"The future is unknown," said Klein, who hasn't been working at his job as a garbage collector since he injured his arm. "I don't know what taxes are owed on this."
Melissa Klein is also out of work, except for baking for family and friends.
Klein said he plans to appeal BOLI's decision and if there is extra money when the legal battle is over, he might donate it to charity.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site
PORTLAND, Ore. - The Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple is breaking records with its crowdfunding campaign.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was kicked off GoFundMe earlier this year, but has since raised more than $350,000 on the crowdfunding site Continue to Give. The growing total, which far exceeds the couple's $150,000 goal, is the largest individual campaign in the history of the three-year-old site, the Washington Times reported. The couple previously netted more than $60,000 from Go Fund Me before that campaign was taken down.
The founder of Continue to Give, Jesse Wellhoefer, said he refused to remove the Sweet Cakes campaign despite "lots and lots" of complaints, according to the Washington Times.
The bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, were ordered to pay the couple $135,000 in damages, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled July 2.
Aaron Klein said he has no plans to stop the Continue to Give campaign and there is no end date set.
"The future is unknown," said Klein, who hasn't been working at his job as a garbage collector since he injured his arm. "I don't know what taxes are owed on this."
Melissa Klein is also out of work, except for baking for family and friends.
Klein said he plans to appeal BOLI's decision and if there is extra money when the legal battle is over, he might donate it to charity.
Saying he might donate this to charity sounds awfully like Zzap! saying he might make time for his kids this weekend or Snarf might have a date with a hot lady. Two things we all know are not going to happen.
A Louisiana teenager says she was refused a Donald Trump cake for her 18th birthday party by Albertsons bakery after she requested a design featuring an American flag that read “Trump 2016”.
McKenzie Gill, a 17 year-old Trump supporter from Bossier City took to her Facebook page to explain what had originally occurred when she asked for a Trump-themed cake at her local Albertsons grocery store.
Gill says she just wanted a cake for her birthday that reflected her excitement on voting for the first time and, more specifically, voting for Trump.
“Trump is just someone I really look up to,” Gill told KSLA.
Gill said that when she and her mother went to the local grocery story bakery to request the Trump-themed cake, they were expecting the standard scenario of ordering a cake.
Instead, she left empty-handed and puzzled.
“We just need an American flag cake with Trump 2016 on it, and right when I said Trump the lady just (makes face) kinda Trump? And she was like I can make you a flag cake but I’m not going to write Trump on it,” Gill told KSLA.
Afterwards, Gill and her mother said they simply went to another bakery to make the cake for them.
“It’s your job,” Gill said. “We’re not really going for your opinion on what you think of the candidates we were just wanting Trump 2016 on the cake.”
Since the enthusiastic young Trump supporter’s story immediately grabbed headlines, Albertsons released a statement, saying “We apologize to our customer in Bossier City for the situation regarding the cake that was requested.”
“Our Bakery staff member misunderstood the training provided regarding copyrighted phrases, and incorrectly informed the customer we could not fulfill her request,” the Albertsons statement continued. “We would be happy to provide the cake as the customer requested.”
Gill said she never thought her story would see national attention, saying “I was just venting on Facebook when I made the status that I made, I didn’t think I was going to get as much attention as it did.”
“We just need an American flag cake with Trump 2016 on it, and right when I said Trump the lady just (makes face) kinda Trump? And she was like I can make you a flag cake but I’m not going to write Trump on it,”
That should have been a "let me speak to the manager right now" moment.
Quote:
Afterwards, Gill and her mother said they simply went to another bakery to make the cake for them.
See, that's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Although he could have made trouble, he just moved on to another baker to have it done the way he wanted.
Quote:
“It’s your job,” Gill said. “We’re not really going for your opinion on what you think of the candidates we were just wanting Trump 2016 on the cake.”
Since the enthusiastic young Trump supporter’s story immediately grabbed headlines, Albertsons released a statement, saying “We apologize to our customer in Bossier City for the situation regarding the cake that was requested.”
“Our Bakery staff member misunderstood the training provided regarding copyrighted phrases, and incorrectly informed the customer we could not fulfill her request,” the Albertsons statement continued. “We would be happy to provide the cake as the customer requested.”
A bullshit response from Albertson's. An honest and appropriate response would have been to apologize, be honest about the employee's discriminatory behavior, and announce that the employee had been suspended or fired, and any employee who behaved the same way would similarly be fired.
The B.S. response, with no penalty for the employee, is essentially an endorsement of the employee's discriminatory behavior.
