Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Cake.jpg
Aaron and Melissa Klein, who run a small family bakery in Oregon, say they've gotten "overwhelming" support after refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because of their Christian faith. A Food Network cake star has offered to make the couple's cake for free. (Sweet Cakes by Melissa Facebook photo)

Support, criticism for Oregon baker who won't make a wedding cake for lesbian couple

February 4, 2013 @ 6:11 pm (Updated: 3:59 pm - 2/5/13 )

The owner of an Oregon bakery who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple says he's being vilified because of his personal views about marriage.

The dispute involves a Portland woman, her fiancee and fiancee's mother. The mom and one of the brides-to-be went to Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham to order a cake.

Parties involved have now retained lawyers and won't talk about the incident, but one of the women told The Oregonian newspaper the baker refused to take their cake order.

Aaron Klein, who runs the bakery with his wife, reportedly called the lesbian couple "abominations unto the lord."

Klein denies calling the couple "abominations" and says same-sex marriage goes against his Christian faith, so he does not want to make a wedding cake for the couple.

The bakery owners' beliefs are not hidden. The Sweet Cakes website has a Bible verse on the homepage.

They also state: "We here at Sweet Cakes 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."

The bakery was closed Monday, but supporters plan to show up at the shop Tuesday when it opens. In an email, the owner says the response to his decision has been "overwhelming."

"I am in full support," says Debby Tiner through Facebook. The bakery owner is "standing up for his God given rights to believe in the word of God. Amen to him."

"What ever happened to 'We have the right to refuse service to anyone?' Read the Bible and see what God has to say about this issue," says Harriet Perigo.

"If he doesn't want to accept their order then why should he have to? Go somewhere else to get your cake made, says Ruth Townsend. "It's a no-brainer."

Meanwhile, Duff Goldman, of the Food Network show, "Ace of Cakes," says he will make a cake for the Portland couple for free. Goldman, who owns Charm City Cakes, also says he'll personally drive it up from Los Angeles and deliver it for their wedding.

In a video on the Huffington Post, Goldman says he wanted to "right a wrong."

The Oregon attorney general's office is investigating a complaint against the bakery because of a state law that declares it is a violation for a business to deny full and equal accommodations for customers based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other factors.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (174)


  • Add A Comment

  • The Dude Abides wrote...
    For God's Sake! (pun intended)
    February 5, 2013 8:30 am
    Let the guy make or not make cakes for whomever he wants. The law usually allows for some wiggle room on these issues. If it didn't, then fat chicks everywhere would be filing lawsuits against strip clubs and bikini coffee stands for refusing to hire them because they're not hot. This guys should legally be allowed to sell to whomever he chooses. On the flip side, the happy couple should be legally allowed to blast them on social networking sites, and make sure that this jerk0ff loses a whole s-ton of business from all the negative publicity. Let the Christian businesses have their way, as long as it's not a denial of essential services, then let them be crippled by the backlash to their simple-mindedness.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Good Idea Dude
    February 5, 2013 8:33 am
    Ask Chick Filet how that Gay Ban went.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    ignorant
    May 15, 2013 12:47 pm
    it went well-the fat religious sheep crowded into the restaurants and got fatter-then the crowds died and Chik Fil A promised to stop funding anti-gay groups-what story you talking about?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    And I am certain that his business will more than make up for this
    February 5, 2013 8:36 am
    by those very same Christians.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Again;
    February 5, 2013 8:49 am
    It's a private business. It is ther RIGHT! No shoes. No shirt. No man. No service. But this is not allowed in Crazy land.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    wrong
    May 15, 2013 12:48 pm
    no-no public business has that right
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    This is another American pushing back against the regime and it's beloved Homosexual agenda.
    February 5, 2013 9:04 am
    Let it happen here in Liberal Lala land. Our American revolution grows more and more!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    The bakery should have taken the easy way.
    February 5, 2013 9:31 am
    Give those two divers a couple of Tweenkies and a couple of candles. Way more fitting.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    A bunch of crazy whackos...
    February 5, 2013 9:49 am
    ...tried getting people to boycott Borracchini's. Look how well that worked out.

    Watch this bakery's business BOOM.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    Let anyone without sin cast the first stone
    February 5, 2013 9:57 am
    Therein lies the logical fallacy of Klein. Jesus taught his followers to go out and share the word of The Lord and lead by example without judgement. Judgement is God's job, not Klein's. Klein's job is to sell cakes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Krazy town
    February 5, 2013 10:07 am
    Your logic fails, it doesn't say that you should support those committing sin or assist others in committing sin, and that is what this owner believes these women are asking him to do, i'm not asking you to agree with him, i'm saying he has the right to his beliefs and as such these women have no right to force him into believing what they believe. also don't forget, this is an American business owner and as such he should have the right to refuse service to anyone.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @cbrew: my logic is sound
    February 5, 2013 11:36 am
    You are conflating my statement with support of the Oregon law which couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm merely stating that this baker is mis-using the faith I share to justify his refusal to provide a service. Jesus explicitly handed us an eleventh commandment :

    "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34)

    Selling these women a cake is not participating in sin, but declaring one's self to be God's surrogate in making judgment is. It's called blasphemy.

    In response to your last statement that an American business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone: I respect your opinion but the fact is that the Federal Civil Rights Act stipulates that this is not the case and it guarantees all people the Constitutional right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." This law was enacted to prevent business owners from denying public access for arbitrary reasons not directly related to impacting said businesses. Oregon is not the first state to augment that law to include sexual orientation, California has had a similar one called the Unruh Civil Rights Act in place for decades and there is a wealth of case law that supports it as a valid and just law.

    I do think that it is a valid opinion that guaranteed right to public access means the business owner's private right to exclude is violated but the modern-day reality is that the courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    If someone tells you they're going to kill somebody...
    February 5, 2013 11:57 am
    ...you don't drive them to the scene.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @SeattleNative: conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit gayness are hardly the same
    February 5, 2013 12:01 pm
    Or are you saying you are OK with an American Theocracy?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Sorry if it went over your head
    February 5, 2013 12:05 pm
    .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Krazy Town: I disagree with you
    February 5, 2013 12:03 pm
    I think in any instance forcing someone to do work that they do not wish to do is known as slavery, If I objected to doing a job and any entity forced me to do it, wouldn't that be forced labor akin to slavery? What if I admit that i wish to burn the Koran and tell a person who's islamic that i want to burn a dozen Koran's and he refuses to sell them to me because that's blasphemous to him and his religion, should i call that discrimination? Should the Government force the muslim to sell me the Koran's so i can burn them? I would expect you and people like you who always try to act like you're taking the moral high rode while actually sympathizing with folks that are asking others to break their moral and religious beliefs would jump up and down saying i don't have a right to force this muslim guy to sell me Koran's to burn.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @Cbrew: "Moral high road" has nothing to do with it
    February 5, 2013 12:24 pm
    We are talking about the law. I understand you disagree with it. Perhaps you could start a grass-roots movement to overturn the Civil Rights Act. Good luck with that.

    Regarding your specific example, I would direct you to California case law on Unruh as your guide. There have been cases where the law supported business' right to refuse when a specific case could cause legitimate impact to business, such a a riot breaking out when you revealed your plan. However, if you really just want to burn a stack of Korans, you can get then from Amazon for as little as six bucks. Or, if you want to save the environment, you can download a few thousand digital copies and just delete them!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    And you can just go down to the neighborhood grocery store...
    February 5, 2013 12:53 pm
    ...to buy your cake.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Krazy town - you just proved my point and agreed with all the people you have been arguing with...
    February 5, 2013 12:56 pm
    You said, "If i really want to burn a stack of Koran's i can get them from Amazon or i could download a bunch of them and delete them" How is that ANY DIFFERENT than what we said? they can go to another baker and get a wedding cake... in this analogy i posed, the person wants to burn a dozen Koran's and went to a muslim to get them, he refused, just like the baker in this story refused, now why if this is the case can't i simply go to the Government and say hey, this guy won't sell me the Korans and it's my religious duty to burn them... MAKE HIM SELL ME THE KORANS! ... that is in essence what the gay couple is asking the Government to do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    Krazy...
    February 5, 2013 5:53 pm
    ... If you really share the christian faith perhaps you have read this scripture:

    Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    A little background... they were told by their local government they could not witness, preach, or teach about the name of Jesus... in other words... keep your faith quiet.

    As much as we're able we should absolutely obey all governemtn laws even if we don't like them. But when it comes to standing for your faith, scripture is explicit...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @WaMovesRight: Nobody has told Klein he needs to be silent
    February 5, 2013 11:05 pm
    Acts 5:29 specifically addresses the apostles' refusal to stop proselytizing and even today, Klein has every right to do that, even in the course of his business.

    But proselytizing, by definition, is to try and induce non-believers to convert to one's faith. Jesus taught the apostles to do it through words, and to expect and welcome persecution for it, as the righteous will be rewarded in heaven.

    Refusing to sell a cake and calling names indicates to me that either Klein is confused about what proseletization is, or he's just doing it wrong.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    wrong
    May 15, 2013 12:49 pm
    but the owner is a carist and a bigot-you see the facebook rants about blacks and hispanics?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    It doesn't matter why the owner doesn't want to make their wedding cake
    February 5, 2013 9:58 am
    All business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone... If they don't want to make these women their wedding cake they don't have to, you can't force them to, would that not be akin to slavery? forced labor? Stop pushing your agenda how about just go find another cake shop that agrees with your lifestyle, this is crap... people who believe they deserve special rights are always trumping the rights of others and this is asking for special rights... If i went to this cake shop and the owner hated me because of something about me, he can refuse to make my cake... so there's absolutely no way you can say these women have more rights than i do and force them to make their cake unless you want to force the owner to make mine even though he hates me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cat50 wrote...
    Hidden Beliefs
    February 5, 2013 10:13 am
    More and more churches are becoming inclusive, so the addition of a Bible verse, especially John 3:16 does not indicate anti- marriage equality sentiments. Nor does being a Christian mean being a homophobe. Honestly, there are better places to draw a line in the sand for Christians than this one. Jesus said a lot more about hypocrisy and the poor than he ever said about being gay.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Jesus also said a lot more about hypocrisy...
    February 5, 2013 11:39 am
    ...than he said about rape and murder. Does that mean Christians are supposed to accept those things as being righteous and moral?

    "Love the sinner. Hate the sin." It doesn't make someone a homophobe.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    "Love the sinner, sell them a dang cake"
    February 5, 2013 12:03 pm
    .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    "Love the sinner...
    February 5, 2013 12:06 pm
    ...sell the murderer a danged knife."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    cat50...
    February 5, 2013 5:57 pm
    ... The Bible is very clearly against hypocracy. It's also very clear about homosexuality (even in the New Testament). It is not a line in the sand that we have drawn. the LGBT community and the heter-enablers who have drawn this line... christianity is merely holding the line. I am not willing to let this go. That does not mean I neglect other tenants of the faith.

    Remember, it was not Christianity that brought this fight front & center... it is the gay agenda does that. The baker did not make an issue of it... the lesbians are making the isse.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gabewalker wrote...
    I'll step into the circle jerk for a minute....
    February 5, 2013 10:36 am
    polygamy and incestuous marriage are not equal.. both have an unequal distribution of power and are prone to abuse, psych, emotional, sexual, physical etc. no matter how many sister wives you got, they ain't happy sharin the old man, same with uncle joebob wantin his lil cute niece.. and if anyone is really for polymarriage then bring it up with your wife and when she says "great,there's this hot young HS football player down the street I want to share you with,i'm sure you won't mind." If two old ladies want to sit on their family fortune we have legal arrangements for asset protection..family trusts,llc's etc. If your sibling is being abused do what everyone else does, pay your friends to put a bullet in their heads.. just make sure your the beneficiary.. shareholders are "married" stock purchase and number of shares held, we already have corporate law for that.. noting stopping them from combining shares/votes.. Only whitey says it's OK for a biz discriminate... How would you feel if you went into a Mexican restaurant with your family for your kids B-day and the server said "we don't serve gringos here." wife, horrified, kids cryin, you pissed off.. Don't think anyone would just quietly get up and walk out with a "thank you, sorry for the missunderstandin."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dori monson fan wrote...
    why is this gay couple picking a fight?
    February 5, 2013 10:48 am
    the gay couple obviously saw the bible verse on the bakery's website and decided to attack their religious beliefs. couldn't just go to another bakery could you? had to push your gay agenda on this hard working family to further your cause.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @DMF: I can't speak for the couple's "agenda" but....
    February 5, 2013 11:55 am
    The fact is that Oregon has a law that augments the Federal Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equal public access to everyone. Any business owner, who operates legally in the state, implicitly agrees to operate within that construct when they apply and pay for a license. If this person feels strongly about the clientele he wants to serve, then he can look for a state that allows him to arbitrarily discriminate based on sexual orientation or he can lobby his state legislature to repeal the law. In the meantime, I guess he can continue with his civil disobedience, but facing the consequences go along with that.

    Your assertion that the parties should just go somewhere else, rather than expect the business to operate legally is unreasonable. Why should the owner be excused from that operating parameter any more that he should be excused from say, washing his equipment or refrigerating ingredients? If you saw rats running around your local eatery would you just stop going there or would you say something? Any reasonable person would report them to the health department so they can be "forced" to clean up or close down.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Why should the business owner...
    February 5, 2013 12:00 pm
    ...be denied his First Amendment rights as a prerequisite to getting his business license?

    THAT is unreasonable.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Because state law always supercedes the...
    February 5, 2013 12:22 pm
    US Constitution, silly.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @SeattleNative: You can join Cbrew in his grass-roots movement
    February 5, 2013 12:28 pm
    To go back to 1963.

    Good luck with that.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Typical loser comeback
    February 5, 2013 12:56 pm
    .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    State Law...
    February 5, 2013 6:00 pm
    ... is always subject to the Constitution of the United States... period.

    If a state makes a bad law, it must be overturned.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gabewalker wrote...
    hold on a sec....
    February 5, 2013 6:14 pm
    I'll get back to this after I finish my blunt...no one for state's rights?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }