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


MelissaAaron.jpg
Melissa and Aaron Klein own the Gresham, Oregon bakery that turned away a same-sex couple who wanted to order a wedding cake. The Oregon Attorney General's office is considering a fine for violating the state's discrimination laws. (Photo of the Kleins from their website SweetCakesWeb.com)

Business triples for bakery dubbed 'Sweet Hate by Melissa'

February 7, 2013 @ 5:00 pm (Updated: 5:20 pm - 2/7/13 )

With the sound of a mixer whirring in the background, Melissa Klein tells me business at her cake shop has tripled this week.

"We've been so busy we had to hire another baker and we'll probably hire more employees just to keep up with the orders," she says.

Melissa and Aaron Klein own "Sweet Cakes by Melissa," the Gresham, Oregon bakery that turned away a same-sex couple who wanted to order a wedding cake.

"Our phone has been ringing non-stop and we've received more than 3,000 emails this week of support," she says.

Aaron reportedly called the lesbian couple "abominations unto the Lord." Klein denies calling the couple "abominations" but does admit he refused to make a wedding cake for them because same-sex marriage goes against his Christian faith.

Before the controversy and discrimination investigation by the Oregon Attorney's office, "Sweet Cakes" had fewer than a dozen reviews Yelp - an online business directory that features customer reviews.

Now the family-owned bakery has more than 375 business reviews from all over the world both in favor and against the couple's refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

"I don't like cakes served with hate," writes Michael B. in Nicholasville, Kentucky. "Perhaps you should be thinking of another occupation, while I know a lot of people who agree with your brand of hatred have been gracing your door the last few days, you can be rest assured those people will thin out quickly and you will find your business irreparably damaged and heading for chapter 11."

"I never ordered a cake from here, nor will I ever probably. But if I could, I would. The fact that you are willing to stand for your beliefs and suffer the consequences makes you a better person than anyone here who think cake can taste like hate or can be baked with it. You run your business, and you run it the way you want to," writes Conner J. from Whitmore Lake, Michigan. "Stand strong Sweet Cakes."

While there are many "shame on you" comments, with suggestions they change the shop's name to "Sweet Hate by Melissa," a few people express the view that a private business has the right to refuse service to someone.

That's not the way Oregon law sees it. Investigators from the Oregon attorney general's office are examining whether the business violated a 2007 Oregon law preventing businesses for discriminating based on sexual preference.

It's is a violation - subject to a fine - for a business to deny full and equal accommodations for customers based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other factors.

"I would hope they would consider our point of view and both sides before they fine us, or anything," Melissa Klein says. "We're just standing up for what we believe."

"Thanks for reminding me that we are in the land of the free. Too bad so many don't understand. To them it is land of the free as long as it is my way," Tim A. in Seattle writes on Yelp.

"Stale, dry cupcakes," Ryan T. from Portland concludes. "Also didn't appreciate the homophobia."

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 (272)


  • Add A Comment

  • dkl wrote...
    Look at their reviews prior to January
    February 8, 2013 9:03 am
    and you'll see that it was mediocre at best. They already had several 1 or 2 star reviews. In a few weeks, they'll have to layoff that extra baker they just hired. Enjoy your 15 minutes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • buffedwhiteman wrote...
    Praise GOD
    February 8, 2013 9:11 am
    Stand tall Melissa and Aaron Klein.Linda Thomas 'Left-Leaning Agenda"?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • buffedwhiteman wrote...
    Linda Thomas
    February 8, 2013 9:20 am
    What happened to fair & balance, "christian-phopia" etc.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kcandjc00 wrote...
    Mavila
    February 8, 2013 9:24 am
    You obviously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cop4hire wrote...
    This is BS
    February 8, 2013 9:34 am
    The gay couple were not told they would not be served. They were told that a cake celebrating their same sex marriage would not be made. If they asked for a cup cake or a birthday cake there would have been no problem. Again....they were not denied service. They were denied a certain style of cake. The state law would be correct if the baker had a sign that said Gays are not served. Unless this baker is some kind of psychic baker there is no way he knew they were gay until they described what they wanted on the cake. Wake up.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Nonsense ...
    February 8, 2013 9:43 am
    Oregon state law treats discrimination based on sexual orientation exactly the same as discrimination based on race. You say that this is OK because they were denied one particular item the baker makes, but could have purchased anything else. Under Oregon state law, that is absolutely no different from McDonalds refusing to sell hamburgers to blacks, but agreeing to sell them anything else on the menu. Both cases are clearly discrimination under Oregon state law.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cop4hire wrote...
    Strawman
    February 8, 2013 10:14 am
    They were not denied a cake or hamburger. They were denied an artistic addition to the decoration of the wedding cake. Is that hard to understand? Why would anyone in love want to celebrate that love by forcing someone to design and make a cake that was not made willfully? This is much ado over nothing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Really??
    February 8, 2013 10:28 am
    They were refused service before they got into the details, but really ... we're probably talking about two feminine names on the cake instead of one masculine and one feminine, and two in-stock female figures instead of one in-stock male figure and one in-stock female figure. You consider those substantive "artistic" additions??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cop4hire wrote...
    OldDaveNJ
    February 8, 2013 10:48 am
    You, like this gay couple are just looking for a reason to be offended. Like I said. This is a "Straw man" argument. When you say "Probably" then you are speculating. So the baker (according to you) is psychic. He knew they were gay before he had any details? The depths you are going to try and make your argument that someones rights were violated are just silly.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Ummm ...
    February 8, 2013 10:58 am
    He knew they were gay because when he asked the names of the happy couple, the couple provided him their names ... two women standing in front of him, two female names ... it doesn't require a psychic to know that if two women standing in front of you say the cake is for them, that it is for a gay couple. (And you think I'M being silly.) And speculation is necessary only because the baker turned them away based on the fact they were gay before they could even talk about the cake itself.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Dude Abides wrote...
    My question is this...
    February 8, 2013 9:44 am
    What if things were reversed? What if someone decided to open up a bakery that only catered to homosexual couples? Would they be similarly scrutinized if they refused to make a wedding cake for a straight couple, and said straight couple decided to make a stink? I don't know the answer, but I have to say that I'm split on this issue. I think that any business that refuses to do business with legitimately good people is ignorant and stupid. However, they should have the right to refuse service to whomever they choose, since their business isn't involved in essential services, and the couple should just move on to someone who will cater (pun intended) to them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Same rules apply ...
    February 8, 2013 9:52 am
    If a homosexual baker makes cakes that heterosexual couples would find appropriate for their own weddings ... and it's hard to imagine any bakery not being equipped and stocked to do that ... they would be required under the law to serve straight couples. And, as I've been noting all along, if you really believe that business owners have the right to refuse serve to whomever they choose, that is the same as saying people should once again have the right to operate whites-only businesses. And maybe you do believe that ... but I doubt many people do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Dude Abides wrote...
    OldDave...
    February 8, 2013 3:24 pm
    I strongly disagree with the idea of any business discriminating against anyone. In my opinion, business is business, and you're hurting your bottom line by refusing to serve anyone. However, no matter how strongly I believe in that, I have an even stronger belief that a business should have the right to discriminate against anyone, regardless of how stupid the discrimination is, as long as it isn't denying essential services like groceries or medical care. My only hope is that business who do discriminate will be crushed under the weight of their own ignorance, and give rise to businesses who serve everyone equally (within reason, of course).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    So you believe ...
    February 8, 2013 4:07 pm
    ... that all state and federal anti-discrimination laws pertaining to public accommodations since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    I would not go there for a cake.
    February 8, 2013 9:56 am
    Knowing full well they catered to Homosexuals, I would not have even mentioned it if I did and they refused. Their rights!

    Get used to it for it is back in fashion!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    Dude.....Businesses do have the right to refuse service. No shirt, no shoes, acting like an idiot, etc.
    February 8, 2013 10:17 am
    They also need to "abide" by state law. They can choose not to and pay the penalty. It just seems to me if you are open to the public, and want to make money, you sell to the public. That's why you're in business. They should put up a sign that says who they will not serve, then the public would know, right? I wonder how that would go over?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    geez
    May 15, 2013 2:57 pm
    this should get you off the fence-say a KKK owned business refused to sell groceries to blacks-and their store was the ONLY food store around for 60 miles-got it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Listen up Parrots!
    February 8, 2013 9:54 am
    Business has the right to refuse service for any reason. People who believe in God have the right not to be forced by this regime to be part of Homosexuality if the CHOOSE to!

    Like I keep telling you mindless Parrots, get used to this. This is American pushing back against your regime.

    We are winning!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    youre an old fat bigoted joke
    May 15, 2013 2:58 pm
    no they dont, bigot-and you lost years ago...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    I'm enjoying the comments on this, and the previous article quite a lot.
    February 8, 2013 10:01 am
    I mean, I'm not loving the nasty bits going either way, except for the drama, but taken as a whole, one can start to get a feeling for how people who feel strongly about an issue tend to whip it up into a huge deal. I'm sure that both parties at this point, wish they were out of the spotlight.

    Regardless, it will be interesting to see how the Oregon AG decides to proceed with this one. I don't know if their law has been tested since it was put in place in 2008 but testing laws are a good thing.

    I'm kind of shocked at how many commenters feel that the constitution and federal laws should be the last (only?) word in the matter because one of the cool things about our country is state rights.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    Being versus Behavior
    February 8, 2013 10:30 am
    When one looks at the "protected" classes in an objective and constituional manner this it becomes cleaer homosexuality should not ever be included as such.

    non-discrimination against race, color, religion, & sex is either explictly or implictly protected by the constitution, amendments, and/or the bill of rights. That is why these laws have stood up to SCOTUS revivew.

    However, Homosexuality does not fall into this realm. In fact, it is not a state of being as much as it's a behavior pattern. Whether you subscribe to the fallacy of "being born that way" or view it as a choice... it is still a behavior... so is heterosexuality... neither of which is protected by founding documents.

    It is illegal for a community to pass a law that contradicst constitutional law. As such, adding homosexuality as a protected class thus forcing christian (or muslim for that matter) business owners to violate their beliefs is an unconstitutional law. The owner is not refusing service to them based upon an constituionally protected state of being... he is refusing service based upon a disagreeable behavior.

    If I own a Bed & Breakfast, it is my right not to service un-married couples. I will undoubtedly lose A LOT of business but I believe pre-marital sexual relationships to be a sin and would not violate my faith by allowing it. Same with homosexuality. Both are behaviors.

    Find someplace else that will, gladly I'm sure, provide the service you desire.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Interesting argument but ...
    February 8, 2013 10:51 am
    Homosexuality is increasingly being considered by mental-health professionals and the general public to be, in fact, "a state of being" (to use your words) that fundamentally determines the gender of those one can enter into a healthy marital relationship with. You obviously disagree with that view, but an increasing number of court decisions, legislative actions, and referendum results across the country are headed in that direction ... a trend that more and more is identifying homosexuals as a class worthy of 14th-Amendment protections.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    wrogn wrong wrong
    May 15, 2013 2:59 pm
    dumb-being gay is not a behavior, idiot-orientation is who youre attracted to-not who you screw...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    good for them...
    February 8, 2013 10:34 am
    i hope they get filthy rich from this. the gheas promised if it was passed that NOBODY WOULD GET SUED. well the gheas lied again, but that's typical for gheas. lying, pedophilia, forceing their views on children...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    The only irony in that post is
    February 8, 2013 1:23 pm
    You were able to muster up the brain power to type it in.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    Moronic
    May 15, 2013 3:00 pm
    no one who abides by the law will be sued...and dummy, ssm is not legal yet in oregon so youre talking out of your fat asss...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }