Skip to comments.Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Gay Couple’s Civil Rights By Denying Them A Cake For Same-Sex Wedding
Posted on 01/22/2014 2:33:09 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
An Oregon bakery stands by its decision to deny a cake for a same-sex wedding.
The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa tell KATU-TV that their religious beliefs have not changed after Oregons Bureau of Labor and Industries determined the Portland-area bakery violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple. Owner Aaron Klein says it almost seems as if the state is hostile toward Christian businesses....
(Excerpt) Read more at seattle.cbslocal.com ...
I don’t think buying a cake from a private establishment is among the basic civil rights..
It would have made so much more sense for the gay couple to go to another bakery, but then they couldn’t push their agenda.
I read here recently we should turn the tables on the progressives. Go to their bakery and order a cake with a gun logo, tea party rules, etc. I loved that idea!
Aren’t the rights of the bakery owners being violated, freedom to practice their own religion??
The whole thing is weird. A wedding cake does not even have writing on the cake. They could have went in and ordered a cake and then find a plastic couple somewhere else to put on the top of the cake. A gay marriage cake? Aren’t cakes for weddings basically four tiers of white icing with a plastic topping? My wife and my wedding cake was basically like everyone else’s cake. The whole thing sounds ridiculous. The customers did not have to say a word about who they were marrying. Definitely agenda ridden.
Great idea. but I suspect that the courts would rule that refusal to provide such images would not be covered by Oregon's non-discrimination laws. We need to take back the legislatures to stop this tide of iniquity and wage economic warfare against the leftists who are destroying the country.
Exactly. And I'll bet they went to several bakeries until they found one who refused them, just so they could sue.
Arent the rights of the bakery owners being violated, freedom to practice their own religion?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
However that same bakery can put up a sign telling me I can’t carry my licensed, concealed weapon in their establishment.
I suppose somewhere you could find a health law about no shoes/no service but not allowing one in their store with no shoes would/should be violating the rights of the customer to not wear shoes.
AND in the case of the cake, they are NOT being denied service, they are being told the owner would rather not decorate the cake as the person wanted it.
If I went in and ordered - say cookies, in the shape of a pile of dog crap, is the bakery BOUND BY LAW to make them for me?
Only if you and the dog are getting married.
Also discussed previously here:
At some point, somebody’s going to sue because he wanted a Pepsi, just one Pepsi, and she wouldn’t give it to him.
Only if you and the dog are getting married.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
I was thinking more of giving them to him for his birthday.
No one has a right to be served by others.
I dont think buying a cake from a private establishment is among the basic civil rights..
Nope, can’t find that in my copy of the Constitution. I do see something about religion and “...the free practice thereof.”
And isn’t there some line in there about free association?
So, if the gay couple wanted a filmographer to do a porno video, that would be a violation if it was refused?
civil rights = birthday cake
This goes back to the civil rights era and a fundamental approach that the ends justifies the means.
There is a portion of the civil rights laws which address something called ‘public accommodation’. This means if you have a business which is open to the public, it has to treat all customers alike and cannot discriminate on the basis of (set of rules). The set of rules initially did not include whether or not someone liked to be a rump ranger, but apparently times change (so we can eventually see any all all behaviors mandated as being required to be tolerated).
Now the justification for this did make some sense at the time, as the idea that some black folks go into a small town with only one hotel, they should not be turned away and stuck without a place to sleep because the owner is racist.
However this was still a clear example of simple statutory law overriding an explicit right set forth in the constitution. Before the civil rights laws, we had freedom of association. After it, we had a number of corollaries (public accommodation is one).
Milton Friedman once said, correctly of course, that “It is no more just to force people to associate together than is to force them not to.”
Even a tool which can on it’s face seem to be on the side of the angels (though as I would say Friedman was correct, this never was), is not guaranteed to stay in the hands of those with good intentions.
Or maybe a Duck Dynasty camo cake?
Awesome idea, wish I thought of that.
“And isn’t slavery and involuntary servitude illegal, except for incarceration and the draft?”
It’s no coincidence that this precedent is being set. Before long doctors and other medical professionals will be compelled to accept unsustainably low fees from Medicaid and subsidized Obamacare patients based on the same legal reasoning.