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

  • okisoji wrote...
    hate to say it
    February 8, 2013 11:19 am
    but as a private business ownwer, isn't it their "right to refuse service to anyone". It's not like they are being denied housing, or employment, or an essential (and hence protected from discrimination) service. As much as I do NOT agree with their bigoted and hateful decision, I do think as a private business owner they should have the right to refuse service, or at least be able to run their business how they see fit without being dictated to by the state. Would you sue a church for refusing to marry a gay couple? Man now that I think about it...what a can of worms we've opened here. But what can you do? Haters gonna hate. That's why I believe in the one TRUE god: Buddha.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Public accommodations ...
    February 8, 2013 11:40 am
    No, it isn't their "right to refuse service to anyone." You started with a list that was correct ... housing and employment. Then you went off the rails ... the next category these kinds of laws generally cover is not "essential" services, but "places of public accommodation" ... which, if you actually look at the Oregon (or any of the other relevant state or federal laws) means any private business that sells goods or services to the general public.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • okisoji wrote...
    when you're right you're right
    February 8, 2013 12:21 pm
    I'm not terribly clear on all the laws; I do think it's an awful choice that they've made, but where do you draw the line between a business owner's choice to run their business as they see fit, and discrimination? There's a reason we have a Fair Housing Act, but not a "Fair Wedding Cake Act". On the same token though, I'm sure if they had refused service to them because they were black, this would be a HUGELY different issue. And it shouldn't be...it's clearly discrimination either way. I guess my "off the rails" lack of direction on this reflects my (and many other people's) evolving beliefs and acceptance of this issue. Ten years ago this wouldn't have been an issue outside of a few progressively liberal publications, but now it's a front and center, mainstream issue. And I hope someday we DO all see these things for the hateful discrimination that they are. I guess my only issue here is the state's involvement. It offends my libertarian views to hear about the state constantly having to meddle in the affairs of the private sector; I would have hoped that this kind of choice by a business owner would result in enough of a boycott to let the fair market be the judge and jury, but apparently my faith in the common sense and dignity of the general population has been misplaced, again.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Stevebo wrote...
    I think one of the things that bugs me the most about this story...
    February 8, 2013 1:16 pm
    Comes down to a partial irony in the comments made against the bakery. Some of those comments are just as hateful in nature as they claim the bakery is.

    I'm completely against the bakery owner's philosophy and my viewpoint is much different... but... I completely support their right to their own beliefs.

    I think it does the cause (that being trying to seek equality for gay/lesbian/transgender) a disservice whenever people automatically cry "HATERED!" whenever someone simply says they are opposed to it.

    I have seen absolutely nothing thus far to lead me to think the bakery owners are "hateful" and "homophobic" (by the way people, please look up the definition so that you truly can understand what a phobia REALLY is... because simply opposing gay/lesbian issues doesn't make you homophobic as many scream and yell).

    Until we can have a rational discourse... and perhaps eventually just respectfully agree to disagree... it's going to be really hard to try and resolve some of these issues.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    I've never used the word hateful...
    February 8, 2013 1:29 pm
    I probably have supplied the majority of posts disagreeing with what the baker did. I haven't once suggested that they hated anybody. I have focused totally on the facts that they violated Oregon's anti-discrimination law, and that such laws (both state and federal) typically and necessarily do NOT have religious exemptions for private businesses. The lack of rational discussion has primarily been because the folks that have been supporting the baker have not been able to provide rational responses to those realities.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Yes Dave you have
    February 8, 2013 2:53 pm
    You've been very respectful and unlike following most threads, I've learned a lot.

    Thanks.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @Stevebo: I agree about the two-way ruckus but...
    February 8, 2013 2:50 pm
    1. The Baker didn't simply say he was opposed to it, he arbitrarily refused to offer a service that he offers to hetero couples. If he had simply said something, he would probably not be investigated.

    2. Merriam_Webster defines homophobia as

    "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

    So calling the bakery owners homophobes would not be out of line since they willfully admit to two of those parameters.

    3. While it might be impossible to prove that the Kleins posted them, there were several very hateful posts made from their account on their Facebook page, which was taken down, cleaned up and reactivated.

    I also support the Kleins' freedom to express their beliefs but Mr. Klein's alleged act of civil disobediance crossed the line from agreeing to disagree and into possible illegal discrimination.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    research please
    May 15, 2013 3:01 pm
    google their facebook page-they are indeed hateful against blacks, fat people and gays
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    Wow...
    February 8, 2013 1:29 pm
    "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time." "In God we trust. All others pay cash." I don't like your looks, I won't serve you. I don't have to have a reason. The trick is to keep one's mouth shut about the reason. It's remarkable that such a tiny minority of sexual deviants in our population can be such a loud and constant pain in the neck. The pedophiles are next and supposedly there are twice as many of them as there are homosexuals.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • don over taxed wrote...
    Constitutional Rights
    February 8, 2013 1:49 pm
    The baker was going to make a fruit cake, however, the two les didn't want to buy it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • boyerbl wrote...
    Hateful Gays Comment
    February 8, 2013 1:51 pm
    Here is a posting that a gay posted: I ordered a cake from here, and I found pubes in it.... Just kidding... but it was horrible and they don't "beleive" in gay people. Boo.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    I just always love...
    February 8, 2013 3:38 pm
    How the gay community and many liberals always turn to the word "hate" to describe anyone who chooses not to engage with them or not to see things their way. How very very ironic. They preach blind acceptance and tolerance of everything and everyone -- unless it's someone they disagree with. Give the "hate" line a freaking REST, would you??? You have gone that route a few thousand too many times...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • beerlover1976 wrote...
    this is stupid
    February 8, 2013 6:25 pm
    the owners of the bakery have decided not to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple..... I see nowhere in the article where they said they wouldn't do business with them. if the bakery were to kick them out of their shop when trying to buy muffins, I would agree with the discrimination argument. I personally feel that gay marriage is wrong, but I would never treat a gay or lesbian any different than a heterosexual. if god has a problem with homosexuals, let god deal with them. until then they are fellow human beings. gay marriage I believe is a separate issue. while I would never protest a gay wedding, I most certainly will not promote it. Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. this is how I feel and to this date nobody has said anything to convince me otherwise.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    How is it not discrimination??
    February 8, 2013 6:36 pm
    A baker refusing to sell one particular item to a particular customer is no different than McDonalds refusing to sell hamburgers to a particular customer. Oregon state law treats discrimination against same-gender couples precisely the same way it treats discrimination against blacks ... with NO religious exemptions. The situation with the baker is, under Oregon state law, no different from a McDonalds refusing to sell blacks hamburgers, while willingly selling them anything else on the menu. Are you really claiming that is not discrimination??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • circuitfr wrote...
    whats really funny....
    February 8, 2013 6:27 pm
    is we all get all bent out of shape because of those "evil" christians....but those awesome strip clubs and porn shops are FINE AND DANDY...YEA!!! Porn shops on every street corner, FREE MARKET BABY. But EVIL CAKE MAKERS. Our society is so twisted around every which way. A private business owner on his own property vs. a screwed up world where porn is king, every T.V. ad is about sex and your daughter can get busy at 13 years old and have her teacher take her downtown to get an abortion without the parents concent. Way to go America!!!! Land of the free!! Enjoy the last few decades, because in about 20 years, with how selfish and retarted parents are becoming, we are going to have one mother stinking stupid generation coming up behind us.....gimme gimme gimme!!!! OBAMAS GOING TO GET ME A PHONE!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    hatred defined
    May 15, 2013 3:03 pm
    idiot-it is hatred-you and your bigoted kind look at gays as less than you and less deserving of equality under the law-hwo do you define hate? those who dont believe in your sky god your parents programmed into you at birth? unbelievable
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    Hmmmmm
    February 8, 2013 8:35 pm
    Methinks "someone" is lying!

    Quoting anything, including a scripture from the Bible, is not calling anyone a name nor accusing them of anything. Any conclusion drawn from such a statement is personal and can change from individual to individual.

    I get the sense that these girls are either looking for attention from the media, or they are WAY TOO sensitive to others thoughts and beliefs.

    I am leaning towards the latter.. no the former.. no the latter.. no the former.... :-0

    Regardless...

    Oregon law (on discrimination, and protected class) does not trump Federal law. No more than Kansas law (on abortion rights) trumps Federal law. Same goes for Washington and Colorado law (on marijuana use) trumping Federal law.

    Just because certain laws have not been challenged in the "big courts" and have been "tolerated" thus far, has no bearing on their legality. Tolerance does not equal legality nor precedence.

    Unfortunately, most small business owners and individuals who find themselves in the Klein's situation, cave to the pressures of our ever so tolerant and "there to help us" government agencies as well as legal entities.

    They are a small business without the clout or finances to resist such corrupt pressures. Once the full weight of the government and all of its supporters fall on the Klein's, they most likely will have no other choice but to crumble. Or close their doors...

    A sad reality.

    Don't believe me? Just watch how this plays out, unless a DEEP pocket comes to their rescue...

    Interest in this bakery and their predicament will soon wane. Cameras and media heads will soon be focused elsewhere.

    But this family will still be stuck in the middle of someone else's agenda.

    An agenda that may cost them their livelihood and a lot more!

    All because 2 girls, yes only 2, singled this couple out. These 2 girls will likely go on, and most likely be media darlings. Whilst this family with a dream will have to deal with the after effects (the tail of the storm if you will), for a long time.

    A sad reality...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    no
    May 15, 2013 3:04 pm
    they were singled out by the state-not these girls-and they deserve to go under-we cannto tolerate hatred-even if its religious kookery
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Wedding Cake Makin' 101
    February 8, 2013 9:56 pm
    This is really very simple.

    First of all, Oregon State law, as well intentioned that I assume it is, must be in compliance with the US Constitution - not the other way around. If you don't get that concept (which many posters don't seem to get), by all means, stop reading now.

    The purchase of a wedding cake is a private contract between two parties - the cake maker and the buyer.

    The buyer has a number of options - they can choose to solicit any one of a number of other businesses that would be glad to fill their order with a quality wedding cake, or if the couple and their families are industrious, they can make their own cake. Their rights to have a cake are not infringed in any way.

    On the other hand, the cake maker, if the Oregon State law is enforced, will be forcibly compelled to make the wedding cake contrary to their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious expression.

    Someone else pointed out - and it's an important fact worth repeating - marriage in many religions (most all, I suspect) is a sacramental ceremony and the wedding cake is obviously one of many symbols of that ceremony.

    Now, who exactly is having their rights violated?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Again, face the direct consequences of your argument...
    February 9, 2013 4:25 am
    Your argument not only speaks against the Oregon law, but every anti-discrimination law pertaining to places of public accommodation in the past half-century, ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. If you are correct, then all such laws enacted in the past 50 years should be repealed. And whites-only establishments (and similar discriminatory practices) should once again be allowed. I just want to be real clear ... is that what you are saying? Because that is what your argument inevitably leads to.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Regardless of politics, Malvia aludes to a difference I hadn't thought of.........
    February 9, 2013 4:49 am
    While the bakery would in all probability be in violation of Oregon (and Federal?) law bu refusing to sell READY MADE cakes to whomever, a CONTRACTED cake may be a different story.

    As with any private contract for services, BOTH parties need agree. Otherwise - no contract, and no service.

    Personally, money is money. But I've occasionally dissuaded business because either I didn't have the time. Or the expert knowledge. Or (sometimes) to save the client from paying for a service not really needed. .. Never for racial, ethnic, religious or orientation reasons. - But, if I really didn't like a potential client for whatever reason, I'm sure I could somehow avoid doing the service. Quietly, without a big media circus.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Public accommodations includes services ...
    February 9, 2013 5:07 am
    You can look it up in the law ... or scroll back a page or two to where I pasted in definitions from both Merriam-Webster and the Oregon state law (which is, BTW, written largely in the same way as anti-discrimination laws in other states and at the federal level). As for violating such a law by hiding your real reason for turning away business, sure ... people get away w/ breaking the law all the time. But note that even if you hide the fact you are turning people of a protected class away illegally, if a pattern of behavior becomes evident, you can still end up in legal trouble. The question remains ... should the government be able to preclude denial of service to protected minorities by a business owner, based on the owner's religious beliefs?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Note also ...
    February 9, 2013 5:10 am
    ... that the service being provided by the baker is one he provides to the general public. There is no substantive difference between a cake for a straight and a same-gender wedding celebration. Same ingredients, same design options (probably picked out of a book), same pans and ovens, same skills and processes, same stock items.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Well, Old D, I aint a lawyer.
    February 9, 2013 6:53 am
    But you're probably right that a service can't be agreed to and THEN withdrawn.

    .

    But the real question is why WOULD you want to force a shop to serve you if they didn't like you ? ... St. Pat's is coming up next month, for example. And I'd not have the Orange Lodge work MY St. Patrick's Day party.

    Isn't there a bakery a bit more friendly available ?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    It's part of a process ...
    February 9, 2013 7:07 am
    Whites-only restaurants used to be common in the deep South. Then they were made illegal. They went away, blacks were able to eat in any restaurant ... even if they weren't welcome ... and after a time, most hints of hostility went away as well. That wouldn't have happened without the law. Sometimes laws follow social change, and sometimes, in some areas, laws lead the way. This is no different.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Again, those restaurants served whoever walked in the door. They didn't cater. .. None the less, why spend money ?
    February 9, 2013 7:21 am
    In the south, in the 60s, we BOYCOTTED. We DENIED money to racist restaurants.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not the same thing ...
    February 9, 2013 7:36 am
    Catering typically involves making and serving food AT an event. Aside from the time factor involved, this is no different from ordering a meal at a restaurant from a menu and eating it there (or having it delivered) ... except that with the cake you pick it out of a book and because of the time involved have to come back and pick it up, or have it delivered, at a later time. The baker is not involved at the event itself. And as for the '60s, we boycotted them AND we made them illegal.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    law
    May 15, 2013 3:10 pm
    this is not about forcing them to make the cake-they already went elsewhere-thsi is about punishing the bigots for their hatred and law breaking
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Incorrect...
    February 9, 2013 9:18 am
    state laws concerning anti-discrmination for sexual orientation only began springing up around the late 80s. The 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't mention or contemplate the concept of sexual orientation. That's why the states have had to enact these laws - Oregon passed theirs in 2008.

    To my knowledge, which admittedly is limited (I'm by no means an expert on this subject or related law), people weren't turning people of color away from their businesses on the basis of freedom of religious expression. I don't know of a religion that would condone such activity, frankly.

    I will leave the other problem with your argument - equating sexual orientation to race - for another day.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    I didn't say that ...
    February 9, 2013 9:27 am
    I never said the 1964 Civil Rights Act involved sexual orientation. I said it precluded business owners from refusing service to protected classes of people ... in that case, based on race, religion, etc. ... regardless of their religious beliefs. If you are going grant people exemptions based on religious beliefs ... i.e., allow them to decide who they will and who they will not serve, based on claimed religious beliefs ... such laws become completely unenforceable, regardless of whether one is talking about sexual orientation, race, religion, or anything else. And you are just flat out wrong about religion and race ... white separatist concepts regarding separation of the races has always been heavily driven by religious beliefs justified by particular interpretations of the Bible. If you are going to given business owners who don't want to serve same-gender couples a pass, based on a general rule about religious beliefs always taking precedence, you have to do the same for white separatists who don't want blacks in their establishments.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    I didn't know white separatists...
    February 9, 2013 9:39 am
    were a religion. lol

    To say there is any religious authority to support the actions of white separatists is a stretch. I can't think of one and I'm pretty sure every religious authority would condemn discrimination on the basis of skin color.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Skin color is not a sin...
    February 9, 2013 9:41 am
    anywhere in the bible as far as I'm aware.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    read it again
    May 15, 2013 3:10 pm
    yes, but some interpreted the Babel story as gods rule of separating the races...you can interpret anything from primtive writings
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    You are uniformed ....
    February 9, 2013 10:51 am
    There are denominations that are specifically based on white separatist principles.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Do tell...
    February 9, 2013 10:54 am
    OldDaveNJ.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    And here's the flaw with your logic...
    February 9, 2013 11:01 am
    Christian faith denominations can't be based upon white separatist doctrine. It doesn't work in that direction. Denominations are based upon the bible and biblical doctrine.

    Where in the bible does the Christian faith describe one's skin color as a sin?

    Missionaries have been going to Africa and elsewhere around the globe for centuries to convert people of color. Not to convert their skin color, mind you, but to bring them into the fold.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Check out the Ku Klux Klan
    February 9, 2013 2:18 pm
    See http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/touchstone/KKK-Fisher.htm . Check out the Christian Identity Movement: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm Check out the non-Christian religion knows as "Creativity." You may disagree with the religious views of these people, and they may not be that large in terms of numbers. But you can't claim religious freedom as a reason to defy anti-discrimination laws, while throwing religious freedom out the window by claiming the right to judge which religious beliefs are right and which are wrong.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    You really had the google search engine churning...
    February 9, 2013 2:41 pm
    to find those, didn't you?

    You're going to trot out the KKK "church" to support your argument?

    Those examples of yours, I trust, are not legally recognized religions.

    It might surprise you to know that one cannot simply declare themselves and their mom's basement a church or religion.

    Nice try, though.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Legally recognized religion??
    February 9, 2013 2:59 pm
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by "legally recognized religion." If you mean being granted tax-exempt status, the Christian Identity Church is. And I know that the Church of the Creator at least use to be.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Even if it was true...
    February 9, 2013 2:59 pm
    that there was a legitimate KKK religion and there were people publicly attending such a church in their communities (pardon me while I pause for some laughter and dry my eyes)...

    and these KKK folks had a bakery catering to the wedding cake clientele, but refusing people of color, it would be an interesting (theoretical) question as to which competing constitutional right would prevail if their worlds were to collide - that of the religion or the race?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Huh??
    February 9, 2013 3:07 pm
    When you refer to a "constitutional right" of race as they pertain to public accommodations like bakeries, I don't even know what you mean. Do you mean anti-discrimination laws precluding business owners from refusing service to blacks? Because that is precisely the kind of law we're talking about here for same-gender couples ... it's not right explicitly defined in the US Constitution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    First of all, those so-called "religions" you mentioned...
    February 9, 2013 3:13 pm
    are bogus. They wouldn't find any refuge in the courts.

    Secondly, you set up the question - a KKK bakery deciding not to serve a black person on the basis of their race (religious discrimination according to your theory), while the black person could claim racial discrimination - who wins?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Pardon me...
    February 9, 2013 3:16 pm
    I meant, a KKK religous faith-based bakery who can't by virture of their so-called "faith," serve people of color.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Now you are just denying the facts ...
    February 9, 2013 3:19 pm
    The Christian Identify Movement is not bogus, and their churches do have tax-exempt status, so they already have received as much recognition as the government ever grants a church. Second under current laws, which don't recognize religious exemptions when it comes to anti-discrimination laws for businesses like this, the black person could claim racial discrimination under the law. But if you had your way, and religious exemptions were granted to a KKK-run bakery, the black person would not be able to claim discrimination. That's the point.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    BTW ,,,
    February 9, 2013 3:10 pm
    The fact that you find the notion that white supremacist churches exist in some parts of the country, to the extent that you have tears of laughter, really does show how uniformed you are.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Give me a name and address of...
    February 9, 2013 3:18 pm
    one of these churches, if you'd be so kind. I'm not afraid to learn a thing or two.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Here is one ...
    February 9, 2013 3:25 pm
    http://www.christianidentitychurch.net/
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    My point is...
    February 9, 2013 3:21 pm
    that these obscure so-called religions you are trying to equate with Christianity are not likely to find refuge in the courts as a legal religion or church. And we're far astray from the point of this argument in the first place.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Makes no sense ...
    February 9, 2013 3:35 pm
    I'm not trying to equate them to Christianity. I'm saying that the government doesn't distinguish them from any mainstream Christian church under the law. If they qualify for tax-exempt status, that's about as official as it gets. And if you truly believe that religious-freedom rights trump civil rights, then you can't deny another recognized church the same rights you would claim for your own. If you can't see that by now, there's no point in continuing ... and if you do see that, there's also no point in continuing. Good talking to you ...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    My point is...
    February 9, 2013 3:40 pm
    they would not find refuge in the legal system as religion or church. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    My point is ... they already have ...
    February 9, 2013 3:42 pm
    They have tax-exempt status because they are recognized as a church by the government. Simple fact ...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    But...
    February 9, 2013 3:59 pm
    You cannot find any religious authority for their views, can you? It doesn't exist. That's why I say they won't find any refuge in the courts. They're making it up.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
    February 9, 2013 4:12 pm
    The government can't recognize any particular religious authorities to judge the validity of other religions. That would be a far greater violation of the 1st Amendment than anything we've talked about here. If whatever criteria the government uses to judge whether a church warrants tax-exempt status is satisfied by one of these churches, then that church has already met whatever criteria it needs to "find refuge in the courts." No matter how despicable you or I or judges may find their religious beliefs, they have their 1st-Amendment rights to them. That is why conflicts between civil rights and religious-freedom rights aren't judged based on the "validity" of the religious beliefs, but on establishing domains where civil rights trump religious-freedom rights, and other domains where religious-freedom rights trump civil rights. Religious-freedom rights take precedence when it comes to how churches conduct their worship practices, and civil rights take precedence when it comes to how businesses serving the general public operate. There is no other functional way to operate under our Constitution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    You can't make religious faith...
    February 9, 2013 4:21 pm
    out of wholecloth. There has to be a basis for it.

    Tell me where in the bible does it validate or even suggest that skin color is a sin?

    How could these extremist fringe people possibly defend against any discrimination complaints on the basis of their "faith"?

    They can't.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    If you want to learn why ...
    February 9, 2013 4:27 pm
    ... the government grants these churches tax-exempt status as a recognized religion, visit the website I gave you, and do your own investigating as to what criteria churches have to meet ... I shouldn't have to do all the research for you, especially when the only salient point is that the government DOES recognize these churches with tax-exempt status, which I've already established. Whether you like it or understand it is really beside the point.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    The tax exempt status is...
    February 9, 2013 4:34 pm
    what's beside the point. The laws err on the side of granting the status, which they should.

    Defending their decision to discriminate in the courts on the basis of some non-existent biblical doctrine is something entirely different.

    I've asked repeatedly and you have demonstrated no interest in answering, apparently, but I will try one last time.

    Where in the bible is there any justification for considering skin color a sin? Or, even associating with someone else of a particular skin color a sin?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Again, I'm getting tired of doing your research for you ...
    February 9, 2013 4:43 pm
    Here is one website that lists Biblical arguments for segregation of the races: http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/segregation_and_God%27s_word Again, the fact that you and I may think it nonsense is irrelevant. Do you really think a US court of law is going to adjudicate the validity of a church's religious beliefs?? That is crazy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    That's from the same lame...
    February 9, 2013 4:52 pm
    group you cited before. Nice try.

    Otherwise, all those missionaries sent around the world were a bunch of suckers, I guess.

    You started making a pragmatic argument in the beginning, but now you're grasping at straws, straws well beyond your reach.

    Hate the wedding cake makers, write letters to have them prosecuted, or whatever.

    I'm guessing this "investigation" will go nowhere because the liberals don't want their precious law shot down. But we'll see what happens.

    Good luck to you.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    You don't get to decide....
    February 9, 2013 5:33 pm
    You don't get to decide which religious groups are lame, and which are valid based on their beliefs ... nor does the government. Official government recognition or validation of the beliefs of a particular religion doesn't exist in the US, as per the Establishment Clause. The closest any religion comes to being recognized as valid is through it's tax-exempt status. That is established by determining if the church has the following: A distinct legal existence * A recognized creed and form of worship * A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government * A formal code of doctrine and discipline * A distinct religious history * Members who are not members of any other church or religious order * An organization of licensed and/or ordained ministers * Ordained and/or licensed ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of studies * Literature of their own * Established places of worship * Regular attendees and congregational memberships * Regular religious sacramental and/or worship services * Religious instruction for the young * Schools or courses for preparation of its ministers. Please note that nowhere in the list of criteria is a mention of a government evaluation of the church's religious beliefs. Even with the courts, that is precluded by the 1st Amendment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    You know when someone has run out of arguments when ...
    February 9, 2013 5:40 pm
    They raise completely irrelevant and inaccurate assertions (nothing I said ever remotely implied missionaries were a bunch of suckers), random accusations of hatred (I've never said anything to suggest hatred of the bakers), labels (liberal), and totally unsubstantive points (grasping at straws, grasping at straws) ...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    religion
    May 15, 2013 3:12 pm
    haha-all religion is made up, dumdum-someoen made them up at one point
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ OldDaveNJ
    February 9, 2013 4:31 pm
    It's "uniNformed", not "uniformed".

    Unless, of course, you are accusing Mavila of being a cop or something of that sort.

    Just thought I would help, since this seems to be a pattern in your posts.

    No need to thank me. ;-)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    hey
    May 15, 2013 3:04 pm
    baking isnt religious-so only the lesbians are being violated-thats why theyll win
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Time to move on ...
    February 9, 2013 7:15 am
    It's been an interesting discussion, and I didn't learn much, but what I DID learn was interesting. First, it's amazing how many people don't know about anti-discrimination laws involving public accommodations, with no exemptions for religious beliefs, that have been on the books for half a century. It is also amazing how many people can't see that allowing religious exemptions for those kinds of laws is effectively equivalent to repealing those laws, and returning to the days when whites-only businesses and other such enterprises were allowed. It's also interesting that, when people supporting the baker using religious-freedom arguments are forced to face that reality, they occasionally acknowledge it ... and are fine with a return to those days. I personally disagree ... I don't want to go back to those days, and I doubt most people do, but at least those few supporters of the baker who acknowledge that reality are being honest and self-consistent.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Mission accomplished
    February 9, 2013 9:30 am
    Two peoples lives will be ruined because they are targeted on purpose. If they saw the web site they knew the peoples believes. BUT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED THOSE BELIEVES.

    The The state was brought in and two EVIL Christians lives and business will be destroyed. MISSION ACCOMPLISH.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }