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

  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    SO jsut to sum up, Since having a womens only Gym
    February 9, 2013 9:35 am
    is illegal, I should be able to go into the gym and demand service or I can sue them for discrimination.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not the same thing ...
    February 9, 2013 10:53 am
    Already discussed elsewhere in this thread ...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Not discussed Just read teh whole thing
    February 9, 2013 12:11 pm
    The Women's only Gym is a business providing a product or service in return for payment, the bakery is a business providing a product or service for payment. How is it different? In what way. If according to your arguments that since they are a business providing product to the public they must adhere to state discrimination laws in regards to gender and orientation. How is Denying me access to their gym not discrimination in the eyes of the state?

    Is it because Im a male Im not a protected class thus Im not afforded the same protections under discrimination laws?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ Rick W7PSK
    February 9, 2013 1:16 pm
    If you choose to change your orientation and become gay, or get the "operation", then yes, at that time you will be able to join or sue the gym.

    At this point, as a male heterosexual (I am assuming), you have no protections and will be asked to see the door. And, if you are white, then you are trifectally screwed!

    The law will ALWAYS discriminate against you... :-{

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dexterjibs wrote...
    good for this business
    February 9, 2013 6:27 pm
    mext time am in their neighborhood, I will shop there to give support to them. It is their business and they shouild have a right to choose who they cater to. This is America. Unforunately, what has been going on is the sodomites have gained control of the politicians and courts and religious and free speech rights are now being called hateful and thus fair game for politicians to restrict anyone who does not accept sodomites as normal.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    This is
    February 9, 2013 10:16 pm
    SO TYPICAL of the so-called "tolerant" left- those who do not share their beliefs are LABELED, BULLIED and DEMONIZED in order to silence or intimidate them. These gay activists only tolerate those who agree with them! They are the true HATE group. I do not care who consenting adults choose to love, but I will GO OUT OF MY WAY to support the owners of the bakery. They have every right to their beliefs, and the state has NO right to punish and trample on them. They own a PRIVATE business, and can serve whoever they want. Besides, let the FREE MARKET decide. If enough people decide not to go there, they and their business will suffer.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    As long as ...
    February 10, 2013 3:43 am
    ... you are willing to acknowledge the right of private business owners to refuse service to people based on their race and religion as well ... e.g. a return to the days half-a-century ago when whites-only businesses were allowed ... then I'll at least give you credit for being self-consistent, even though I disagree wit you on that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    OldDaveNJ
    February 10, 2013 4:32 am
    SO if your consistent I shall see you down at the Ladies only Gym Protesting Yes??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not quite the same thing ...
    February 10, 2013 7:31 am
    Ladies-only gyms, to some extent, are designed to provide services specifically to women (e.g., their trainers have special knowledge pertinent specifically to women), and meet a market need ... the desire of many women not to have men around when they work out. I don't believe that anybody is claiming this bakery involves any special training pertaining to same-gender cakes or exist to supply a specific straight-oriented market need that is interfered with by serving same-gender couples. That said, in some places, lawsuits have happened and such gyms have been found to be a violation of anti-discrimination laws. Others have recognized the distinction I noted above and allowed them to continue operating. Some states have included specific exemptions for single-gender athletic facilities.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am...
    February 10, 2013 1:20 pm
    OldDaveNJ's argument was thoroughly dismantled yesterday, but he starts back at square one. That's what liberals do - when confronted with defeat, they start all over again.

    It might interest OldDaveNJ that there is nearly an identical case in Colorado stemming from an almost exact set of circumstances in July, 2012, but the State of Colorado hasn't been able to bring the charges even though the bakery owner freely admits that he denied the wedding cake on religious grounds. The facts are not in question.

    Why then has Colorado not charged these folks after 7 months?

    The reason is, in order to enforce the law, they will have to address the constitutionality of the law in court on appeal.

    They can't. And their gratuitous pandering to gay people will have been all for not.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Reality ...
    February 10, 2013 2:14 pm
    If you think you "thoroughly dismantled" my argument yesterday, you are seriously deluded. Your entire premise was based on the absurd notion (among several) that "freedom of religion" involves courts (or you ... it was never clear which) adjudicating whether the religious beliefs of a particular church are valid or bogus in the eyes of the state. I really don't think I need to say more. As for the Colorado case, the couple in question had 60 days to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division ... the first and a necessary step if a case is to proceed. I can find no news report suggesting they ever did file a complaint. You apparently DO have information that not only did they file the complaint, but that "State of Colorado hasn't been able to bring the charges" for the specific reason that "in order to enforce the law, they will have to address the constitutionality of the law in court." Can you please point me to news sources on the web confirming any of those developments?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    The Colorado bakery owner...
    February 10, 2013 2:32 pm
    freely admits they violated the law with the caveat that they did so under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

    As I say, the facts are not in question. It's a clear cut case in terms of the facts. The violator admits he violated the law.

    Equally clear is the state's inability to bring forth charges.

    Now, why would that be? It's because the law is not safe if it's challenged.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Just an FYI upfront ...
    February 10, 2013 2:48 pm
    You are really, really bad at this sort of thing. The event happened, and the baker admittedly broke the law. I am pretty positive that everything you said about how the case evolved from there ... the implicit assertion that a complaint was actually filed, that the state decided they were unable to bring forth charges, and that the decision was based on their belief that the law violates the First Amendment ... was completely made up by you. So again ... just for starters ... please show me evidence that the couple actually filed the complaint. If you respond to that, maybe this is a discussion worth continuing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Does the gay couple have to file...
    February 10, 2013 3:01 pm
    some sort of formal legal complaint?

    (I'm not familiar with the Colorado law)

    In other words, if I'm an employer and I decide to reject a prospective employee on the basis of their skin color, does the prospective employee have to file a formal legal complaint in spite of the fact that the employer admits his guilt?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Yes ...
    February 10, 2013 3:26 pm
    At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it works for employment discrimination, and I'm sure it is for public-accommodations violations, regardless of whether you are talking about sexual orientation, race, or religion. Nothing happens legally until those discriminated against file a complaint. That's true for the Colorado law, the Oregon law, every state anti-discrimination law I've seen.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    I have a hard time...
    February 10, 2013 3:46 pm
    believing that. If I publicly proclaim that I'm violating the civil rights laws, with or without a formal complaint by an aggrieved person, I'm going to have the government come down on me. If not by the aggrieved person, by someone on behalf of the aggrieved person.

    One cannot willingly give up their rights. That's pretty much established in case law. So, by not filing a complaint - a black person or gay couple - that does not absolve the business of their legal obligations.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Thoroughly...
    February 10, 2013 7:39 pm
    dismantled.

    Again.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not really ...
    February 11, 2013 5:19 am
    I've just had enough of you making things up and asking me to do your research for you. It could go on forever. The process involved in dealing with civil-rights violations is pretty common knowledge, and easily verified by visiting the websites of any state or federal civil rights commission. It begins with the aggrieved filing a complaint; without that the authorities can't do anything. (And for somebody like you, who has done nothing but demonstrate ignorance of the law, and show a proclivity for making things up, to start commenting on "established case law" is just a bit too much to take.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • leftyslim wrote...
    Oregon State Law
    February 10, 2013 11:02 pm
    Same sex marriage is illegal and not recognized in Oregon. It seems the state is in an awkward position in compelling a legal business within it's borders to provide a service to a function that the state of Oregon deems illegal. Is the busines required to perform a service to an underage, or polygamas marriage either of which are illegal?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Nope ...
    February 11, 2013 5:22 am
    It is NOT illegal to have a private same-gender marriage ceremony/function/celebration in Oregon, or in any other state that I know of. And pedophiles and polygamists are NOT protected classes in Oregon. Homosexuals ARE a protected class in Oregon, and it IS illegal for a private business that makes/sells a given product to the general public to refuse to do so to a couple based on their sexual orientation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    SO DUMB
    May 15, 2013 3:22 pm
    NO, DUMDUM-SAME SEX MARRIAGE ISNT ILLEGAL ANYWHERE-IT ISNT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED IN 38 STATES, BUT NOT ILLEGAL
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rpa49 wrote...
    Small facts make a big difference
    February 11, 2013 4:46 am
    Aaron Klein was prepared to make a cake for the couple. He didn't ask if they were gay or not. During the ordering phase, Aaron asked who the bride was and one of the women gave her name. When Aaron asked who the groom was, the other woman spoke up and said they were both brides and they were a gay couple. It was at this point that Aaron said he could not make them a cake for their wedding. Most are coming at this as being discrimintory towards the gay couple. Aaron has served gays in the past, making graduation, birthday, get well, etc-types of cakes. Aaron is asserting his First Ammendment Right - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; His religion AND the State of Oregon do not recognize gay marraige. Aaron is protesting the unlawful marraige. He was not hateful even though his decision may have been hurtful.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rpa49 wrote...
    Aaron Klein speaks at length to Lars Larsen
    February 11, 2013 4:56 am
    For those that might think (incorrectly) that I have made up certain details, I would direct you to the lengthy on-air interview Portland Radio Host Lars Larson did with Mr. Klein late last week. Go to Larslarsen.com or The Lars Larsen on Facebook. You can listen to the entire interview there, and if you've never listened to Lars before you are going to be in for a treat (no cake though!)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    There is nothing unlawful about a private same-gender wedding ceremony.
    February 11, 2013 5:25 am
    The baker makes and sells wedding cakes to the general public. He refused to do so for this couple specifically because they are a same-gender couple. That IS discrimination under Oregon state law. And, like pretty much all anti-discrimination laws dealing with public accommodations over the past 50 years, private businesses are not granted exemptions based on their religious beliefs. Such exemptions would render such laws unenforceable.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    because the baker turned them away based on the fact they were gay before they could even talk about the cake itself.
    February 11, 2013 5:42 am
    What are you trying to say? He knew they were Homosexual and exercising his right to refuse service and losing money, told them NO! What is so wrong or so heinous about his actions? Like no one in this world has ever been told no before!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Private businesses have not had the unfettered right ...
    February 11, 2013 5:47 am
    ... to refuse service to people for nearly 50 years. State and federal laws have defined protected classes of people ... based on things like race, religion, and in some states sexual orientation ... for a long time. And such laws typically don't include exemptions for the businesses religious beliefs. The baker violated Oregon anti-discrimination laws ... laws that are very similar to similar laws that have been around for decades.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    OldDave.... It seems a bit odd that the Oregon Attorney General is "considering" fining a private citizen for violating anti-discrimination law.
    February 11, 2013 10:54 pm
    When the State denies the same couple the right to marry, they have the gall to point the finger at a business that doesn't recognize it either. The gay couple will be denied by the State the right to marry, then turn around and drop the hammer on a business that won't sell them a cake that represents something they can't legally do under State law. Oregon will demand equality from its' citizens but is exempt from providing the same. Seems a little...... hypocritical.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Oregon doesn't deny them that ...
    February 12, 2013 4:08 am
    There is nothing in Oregon state law that precludes a same-gender couple from having a private wedding ceremony/celebration. That is absolutely something they CAN do under state law.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    Right. They can certainly celebrate, that never was the question. They just have to go to another state if they actually want it to be legally recognized. Which was my point.
    February 12, 2013 8:16 am
    The State of Oregon does not treat ALL their citizens equally. The governing body discriminates and the double standard is remarkable.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Got it ...
    February 12, 2013 8:49 am
    Most people raise that point to justify the baker's refusal to serve the couple, based on the notion that what the couple wants to do is "illegal" ... which it isn't.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    Agreed. Having a party isn't illegal. Although, I've attended some that should've been. :)
    February 12, 2013 9:51 am
    For the past...1,2,3,4,5 days now, you've argued your point respectfully. Regards.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }