Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘We Still Stand by What We Believe’: Bakers Who Refused to Make a Gay Wedding Cake Double Down
The Blaze ^ | January 20, 2014 | Billy Hallowell

Posted on 01/20/2014 10:45:45 PM PST by yoe

Officials in Oregon have ruled that Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery that made national news after refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding last year, violated a lesbian couple’s civil rights.

Owners Aaron and Melissa Klein, Christians who oppose same-sex unions, reacted to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries’ ruling in an interview with KATU-TV, telling the outlet that they stand by their convictions.

“We still stand by what we believe from the beginning,” ( said Aaron Klein). “I’m not sure what future holds, but as far as where we’re at right now … it’s almost as if the state is hostile toward Christian businesses.”

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; melissaklein; sweetcakes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last
Oregon is still in America isn't it??????


1 posted on 01/20/2014 10:45:45 PM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe

Almost???


2 posted on 01/20/2014 10:51:09 PM PST by informavoracious (Open your eyes, people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: yoe
Apparently the couple wasn't opposed to making them birthday cakes but not a wedding cake. Which shows that there motivation was about violating their religion and not against the homosexuals themselves.

But I agree that this is a form of harassment by the state for even considering taking this on.

4 posted on 01/20/2014 10:58:41 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Apparently the couple wasn't opposed to making them birthday cakes but not a wedding cake. Which shows that there motivation was about violating their religion and not against the homosexuals themselves.

But I agree that this is a form of harassment by the state for even considering taking this on.

5 posted on 01/20/2014 10:58:41 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caww

Our governments have to grow up and start telling hysterical gays to get a real life of their own.


6 posted on 01/20/2014 11:00:39 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yoe

The Gaystapo will ruthless purge any dissent to the approved ideology.


7 posted on 01/20/2014 11:08:29 PM PST by Ronin (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life - Rep. L. Gohmert, Tex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

I think they should appeal based on the argument that it’s not their choice.

That they have a right to be Christian, in their denomination.

And that their denomination teaches that homosexual marriage goes against the will of God.

Therefore, in order to practice their religion, they cannot support homosexual religion.

In other words, make the Court address the application of religion - that’s what the issue is.

Application is everything - the Court already acknowledges that there are exemptions for churches and religious schools. That means there are exemptions where the act cannot be separated from the religious belief.

That’s what needs to be argued - that business dos not separate a person from their religious belief.

And here, I’ll prove it - if this was a Muslim bakery, that’s exactly what would be argued.

And it would win.


8 posted on 01/20/2014 11:09:23 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Unfortunately, that very American sign that you have posted is trumped by all the anti-discrimination laws passed by a meddling federal government and even the state governments.

With these laws, private businesses no longer have the right to refuse service to certain groups of people based on religion, ethnicity, race and even sexual deviancy.

There is no more freedom.


9 posted on 01/20/2014 11:14:41 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. When you decide to become a “fee for service” business - you have to take on all comers.

Black Letter law, affirmed by SCOTUS - goes back to Civil Rights days ...

They either have to suck it up - or close their business.

No different than if they wanted to refuse service to a person based on their politics ...


10 posted on 01/20/2014 11:16:09 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Didn’t the couple violate the civil rights of the couple who owns the bakery?


11 posted on 01/20/2014 11:29:08 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. When you decide to become a “fee for service” business - you have to take on all comers.

Black Letter law, affirmed by SCOTUS - goes back to Civil Rights days ...

It may be law, but it sure isn't right.

12 posted on 01/20/2014 11:32:37 PM PST by Washi (Stop Obama's War On Jobs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Lol

Boy howdy with a name like Aaron Klein....I woulda never guessed they were anything but of the tribe....

But God bless them....they have mettle

Hope they fare better than Maurice of BBQ fame...

Standing up to PC fascism


13 posted on 01/20/2014 11:34:29 PM PST by wardaddy (wifey instructed me today to grow chapter president beard back again....i wonder why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I wonder what the SCOTUS thinks about a governor saying certain people aren’t welcome in a state?


14 posted on 01/20/2014 11:34:51 PM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheelbarrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: max americana
"Why didn’t they just lace the cake with ex lax and get it over with?"

Actually, I would be worried that this couple would lace the cake themselves and blame it on the baker.

15 posted on 01/20/2014 11:43:56 PM PST by CatOwner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. When you decide to become a “fee for service” business - you have to take on all comers. Black Letter law, affirmed by SCOTUS - goes back to Civil Rights days ... They either have to suck it up - or close their business.

It's a bad law, just like Roe, Dred Scott, and Plessy, and no decent person should accept bad law as settled law.

16 posted on 01/20/2014 11:47:17 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Will the gay “marriage” supporting Republicans support Religious freedom????

This ruling is unConstitutional see the 1st amendmendment.


17 posted on 01/20/2014 11:54:49 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I set the fee. I decide the service. I am not a slave who can be required to do what I choose not to do.


18 posted on 01/21/2014 12:00:52 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yoe; Ohioan; Pelham; nathanbedford; Travis McGee; CatherineofAragon

This is King day

I survived yet another of this superfluous assigned day of so called conservatives from Rush to Beck to Levin to Hannity making fools of themselves and being ignorant...
Willfully ignorant.
Those acts...CRA etc
Lauded by so many fools here

Made this happen..

Cause and effect.

Yet public rightists can’t claim KING and credit quick enough

Even Allen West....does anyone this side of the White Doe have any public balls over this


19 posted on 01/21/2014 12:04:46 AM PST by wardaddy (wifey instructed me today to grow chapter president beard back again....i wonder why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

>> When you decide to become a “fee for service” business - you have to take on all comers

And does that include forcing the business to create and sell products he normally wouldn’t make?


20 posted on 01/21/2014 12:12:52 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. When you decide to become a “fee for service” business - you have to take on all comers.

Not if you sell alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, guns, pornography, fertilizer, insecticides, explosives, fireworks, run an amusement park ...


21 posted on 01/21/2014 12:21:52 AM PST by gitmo (If your theology doesn't become your biography, what good is it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
I am not a slave who can be required to do what I choose not to do.

We agree completely. In the last two years that I was willing to work (political polling) for liberals, I charged them more than triple what I charged decent people. Rather oddly, they actually paid because they liked the quality of my work. Since then, I stopped working for them completely, and then retired. I set my own rates, and I decide whether I have time for a new commission and from whom.

With a custom baker (or wedding photographer), the situation is exactly the same. In the terrible political climate of today, a decent person has two choices. One can lie (there is no moral issue with lying to those who are evil), or one can stand on principle and accept the extremely unpleasant consequences while working to restore freedom. I have no objection to accepting a perverted commission with the intent of cancelling at the last minute due to a personal conflict, health, unforeseen circumstances, or some other excuse, to avoid these lawsuits. I also have no problem with accepting the fines after a long and painful fight in court, so long as the money extorted in illegitimate fines does not go to the perverted bullies.

22 posted on 01/21/2014 12:22:35 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: caww

Your post is just as confusing here on FR as it was in the comments section of the original article. I assume you mean that a birthday cake is just a cake, the sexual choice of the customer not withstanding, but a cake to celebrate a homosexual “wedding” is a travesty, the baking and sale of which would violate the Kleins’ religious beliefs.

The state has violated the Kleins’ 1st Amendment protections by “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” of their chosen faith. As far as the rights of lovely couple are concerned, being queer is not a religion needing protection.


23 posted on 01/21/2014 12:34:27 AM PST by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

As General Anthony C. McAuliffe once said, “NUTS!”


24 posted on 01/21/2014 12:38:39 AM PST by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Exactly what right was allegedly violated ?

Was it life?
liberty?
or the pursuit of happiness ?

25 posted on 01/21/2014 12:46:13 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
No different than if they wanted to refuse service to a person based on their politics

Actually, it's pretty different. This whole public accommodation thing got launched because of a private business refusing to serve black customers. I'm not arguing that the public accommodation premise is correct. I do think there's quite a difference between accommodating people with a certain skin color not of their own choosing versus freely chosen political or religious beliefs, particularly where the accommodation requires a business owner to effectively surrender their belief in deference to the contrary view of their customer.

Here a thought experiment to demonstrate the difference. If it was a black couple that ran the Heart of Atlanta motel, and the Klan wanted to rent some rooms and hold a conference there on the inferiority of non-white races, do you think the black couple might have a right to refuse them a venue for expressing that political view, as a private business? If not, wouldn't that mean that the federal government was using the commerce clause to suppress the more basic freedoms such as the freedom of association and freedom of speech of the black couple? If such a case actually made it to SCOTUS, how do you think the current Court would decide?

So in the cake case, while the lower courts will be predisposed (for a variety of adverse reasons) to agree with your overly expansive application of public accommodation, the fact is this situation with gay marriage puts a uniquely difficult burden on religious free exercise. The Smith precedent would no doubt be invoked to claim the commerce clause requirements are just a general law neutral to religion and therefore can coerce the baker to either create speech that violates his faith, or be forced out of commerce altogether.

But such a result would be absurd, as there is also case law to the effect that one cannot be compelled to speech that is contrary to one's beliefs. That is as much a violation of the first amendment as being coerced into silence. In fact, it is a variant form of being forced into silence.

So what we really have here is a point of winner-takes-all conflict between public accommodation and religious accommodation, which is also well established in black letter law. The tiny acorn that is Wickard v Filburn made this day of conflict inevitable. The commerce clause is overextended and is being used to swallow up our most cherished freedoms. Time to roll it back.

26 posted on 01/21/2014 1:01:21 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Two possible options:

1. Stop making wedding cakes altogether, if they can afford to do so.
2. Make the lesbians a chocolate sh!t cake, like the woman baker in New Zealand.


27 posted on 01/21/2014 1:06:04 AM PST by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
You confuse context just as homosexuals attempt to do and you misapply federal law that exists on the books.

People have the right to discriminate based on most things of their whim but not on certain specific things.

The context is in 'wedding' cakes, not cakes of other origin. Wedding cakes are adorned with expressions, symbols and sacraments of matrimony. Such cakes are art forms or expressions of spiritual values. Hence, they are specialized to the occasion and are not subject to coercion, legal or otherwise.

A customer of a cake maker cannot specify to the cake maker what is to be made. That is up to the designer, producer and creator of the cake. A customer can only choose what is offered. For example, a customer cannot demand that a cake be Kosher if it is not offered. A customer cannot demand a musical group play satanic music that hails Satan and condones murder.

And what constitutes an 'offer' in business is subject to the wide interpretation of the producer who may restrict any offering based on religious tradition or artistic inspiration.

Of course there must associate a reasonable basis for restricted offers. For example, refusing to serve a regular meal to a family of African ethnicity, a 'black family' based on the reason they are black is not reasonable in the eyes of any court of law. Refusing to serve a black family or any family or any person a pork sandwich inside a kosher restaurant is reasonable. Even if the kosher restaurant has a separate kitchen for preparation of non-kosher products, it would be unreasonable for any customer to demand that the non-kosher product be prepared in the kosher kitchen.

A Wedding is a religious rite and is therefore protected under the First Amendment and this includes participating producers to the performance and enactment of weddings.

A homosexual group cannot demand and threaten a religious producer to perform that which goes against the tenets of their faith. Laws of civil rights are based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, where:

Terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, ...

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

Civil rights laws do not include sexual orientation as a type of discrimination that is prohibited by law:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/index.cfm

Proposed amendments to civil rights laws to include 'sexual orientation' as a prohibited type of discrimination fail legal tests under first amendment protections.

28 posted on 01/21/2014 1:17:28 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Well said. Of course an argument for trial.


29 posted on 01/21/2014 1:21:41 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

“...as there is also case law to the effect that one cannot be compelled to speech that is contrary to one’s beliefs...”
-
What do you refer to?
Give my old thick head a clue.


30 posted on 01/21/2014 1:41:11 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Washi

We are governed by consent.
We chose....


31 posted on 01/21/2014 1:43:42 AM PST by ssschev (Pick up the can, throw out the trash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yoe

it’s almost as if the state is hostile toward Christian businesses.”

Yes.

A fish rots from the head - in this case, the doofus in the White house and his moronic immediate predecessors.


32 posted on 01/21/2014 2:25:30 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
hostile toward Christian businesses

The governor is currently drafting an announcement stating, "Anti-homosexual wedding cake bakers are not welcome in Oregon."

Why arent' these people patronizing their supporters? Aren't there any homo-bakers?

33 posted on 01/21/2014 2:36:26 AM PST by Right Wing Assault
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ronin

The Gaystapo will ruthless purge any dissent to the approved ideology.


Time to open that closet door and herd them back into it......


34 posted on 01/21/2014 2:50:13 AM PST by S.O.S121.500 (Had Enough Yet ?............................ Enforce the Bill of Rights............ It's the LAW !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

The Laws are that Government may not prohibit the free expression of religion nor enslave you for another. It has been held many times you do not give up your constitutional protected rights to start a business.

A huge problem with your argument is this situation does not involve fungible goods but personal labor and services.


35 posted on 01/21/2014 2:55:07 AM PST by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Your position may be better if this were the only wedding cake outlet available to the gay pair. But it’s not. They can get their cake at any of a zillion other places.

That’s the relief.


36 posted on 01/21/2014 2:58:47 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
Didn’t the couple violate the civil rights of the couple who owns the bakery?

EXACTLY what I was thinking - thanks for putting it into words! How would that be argued?

37 posted on 01/21/2014 3:00:09 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

So what you suggest is find a Muslim bakery and ask for cake made with bacon fat frosting? If they wouldn’t make it then sue. Makes sense to me.


38 posted on 01/21/2014 3:30:05 AM PST by Portcall24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Good for them!

Imagine losing your business over this insanity. Mean liberals suck.

39 posted on 01/21/2014 3:33:30 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. When you decide to become a “fee for service” business - you have to take on all comers.

And that was a mistake. A well-intentioned mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

40 posted on 01/21/2014 3:36:32 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: twister881

Another option:
3. Sell the little statues on top separately. The same-sex ones are out of stock, sorry.


41 posted on 01/21/2014 3:58:39 AM PST by ReaganGeneration2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Gene Eric; Lmo56
Does that include forcing the business to create and sell products he normally wouldn’t make?

The poster won't answer that question because to do so will force him to either lie or reveal more of his agenda than he wants too.

43 posted on 01/21/2014 4:14:28 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Over production, one of the top 5 worries for the American Farmer every year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

Yeah, forget almost. For all you lib lurkers out there who are outraged that these bakers should refuse... You want the freedom for deviants not to be persecuted for their deviant behavior, then you have to allow non deviants the same freedom - don’t persecute them for being normal. Oh, don’t like my use of deviant and normal? Look up the meanings and the statistics, then sit down and shut up.


44 posted on 01/21/2014 4:19:53 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: max americana

Instead of water in the recipe, use tuna oil.


45 posted on 01/21/2014 4:22:14 AM PST by rfreedom4u (Your feelings don't trump my free speech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yoe

I guess we need to buy cakes from that bakery. Gays, Christians do NOT want your business.


46 posted on 01/21/2014 4:30:23 AM PST by ExCTCitizen (2014theyearofdeadRINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

They didn’t refuse the people, just the event. How is that violating civil rights?


47 posted on 01/21/2014 5:01:40 AM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
They didn’t refuse the people, just the event.

They should have made them a birthday cake....double fudge.

48 posted on 01/21/2014 5:06:06 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
"all comers"

Then I guess you would agree that Jewish cake bakers have to bake cakes for Nazis who want swastika decorations on the cake. Or Black bakers bake cakes for Klan members with pictures of lynched black people on it.

49 posted on 01/21/2014 5:20:54 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
What happened to Maurice BBQ?.....it's my favorite BBQ in South Carolina.

Does it have to do with their 'Confederate leanings'?

50 posted on 01/21/2014 5:39:33 AM PST by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson