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

  • Mavila wrote...
    Four negative quotes...
    February 7, 2013 5:21 pm

    and not one positive?

    These emails or posts aren't on their web site that I can see, so I wonder how Ms. Thomas got her hands on them?

    Care to share, Ms. Thomas?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    @Mavila: they were on Yelp
    February 7, 2013 5:30 pm
    As was stated in the article.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Ahhh...
    February 7, 2013 6:06 pm
    Thanks. Didn't catch that (obviously).

    Looks like an internet drive-by hit on the business. Organized by a hate group of some sort.

    The News Chick, herself, says there were fewer than a dozen reviews before, now more than three hundred. It's obviously an organized hate-fest.

    Yet, curiously, none of the supportive posts are quoted in the News Chick's blog post.

    So, what's your point, Ms. Thomas? You say there are positive posts, but quote only 4 negative ones.

    Am I making a nasty, inane, and hurtful post?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Read again Mavila
    February 7, 2013 6:24 pm
    There are actually two quotes supporting the bakery and two quotes against the bakery. Where are you getting that 'none of the supportive posts are quoted'? Conner J supports the bakery, as does Tim A.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    I see that now,
    February 7, 2013 6:42 pm
    NewsChick. Misread the Conner one and the Tim A one is a little ambiguous, but you are right I'm sure. My apologies.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    No good quotes?
    February 8, 2013 7:15 am
    Lets at least read the article before posting guys.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Nah....
    February 8, 2013 7:27 am
    Nah... the hate and/or anger filled people who dislike KOMO, the 'liberal media', The News Chick and so on don't need facts or details of the actual story as written to spew thier daily dose of dumbsh__. They seem to enjoy going off half cocked while uninformed. I wonder if they live the rest of thier lives like that?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Sarg
    February 8, 2013 7:46 am
    It must be tough to be as perfect as you. Amazing how an evenly split option makes the "other" opinions anger filled haters in your eyes. As you continue to prove to the world, so much for the tolerance of the liberal left....hypocrite!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    The quotes are on Yelp
    February 7, 2013 6:25 pm
    And there's a link to that in the story. The other quotes from Melissa are from a direct conversation with her. Care to chill on the conspiracy theory?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    Yes, ma'am. My bad.
    February 7, 2013 6:51 pm
    I'm going to assume the "conspiracy theory" dig is a good-natured ribbing which is well taken.

    Incidentally, I thought you did a balanced job on the drone story a day or two ago.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Thanks Mavila
    February 7, 2013 6:59 pm
    Yes, good-natured ribbing. What do you think of Mayor McGinn shutting down the drone program?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    I posted on one of the threads that...
    February 7, 2013 7:08 pm
    I thought it is the best thing he's done as mayor. The benefits they said they were going to derive from the program didn't outweigh the costs and it's just kind of a creepy program if you ask me. You know the old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure good intetions were behind this, but it might just get us closer to hell in the end.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @mavilla
    February 8, 2013 7:29 am
    I'd say the same thing about the folks protesting against the drones. They may have had good intentions, but they also can pave the road to hell with thier over the top, 'well outside the facts' screaming and protesting. Somewhere in the middle was the truth, yet they didn't seem to want to seek it...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Sarg
    February 8, 2013 7:48 am
    Again, you cherry pick the truth to cast your dispersions on anyone with a different opinion. Must be tough to be as perfect as you....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Good for them
    February 7, 2013 5:27 pm
    It'll be a travesty if they are forced to choose between baking the wedding cake or face sanctions by the state of Oregon but it likely will come down to that. Of course, the couple could go elsewhere for the cake but they can't do that because they want to force this business to do it. Getting a wedding cake isn't the objective here. Obeying the law isn't neither. It's forcing a christian couple to acknowledge and honor their wedding and their lifestyle. That's the objective. Oh, that and the publicity and the media splash.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Seattle Dad wrote...
    Glad I'm not alone
    February 8, 2013 8:41 am
    in recognizing the obvious. Thanks!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    HATRED IS NOT COOL
    May 15, 2013 2:40 pm
    no, dumdum-the objective is to follow the law and serve everyone-and they will pay for their bigotry a(hint-gays gave up trying to convince mindless sheep bigots like yourself YEARS ago)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Westboro leaders are looking for them
    February 7, 2013 5:31 pm
    I think that a Westboro Baptist church is looking for a few cakes.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Seattle Dad wrote...
    More evidence of
    February 8, 2013 8:41 am
    liberal hate.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    not true,
    February 8, 2013 10:36 am
    these people are good patriotic people who love people, veterans, and america. the hate filled people are the ghea nazi's who go looking for a lawsuit so they can force their ghea behavior on everyone.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    As I said on the other thread...
    February 7, 2013 6:20 pm
    this couple is not being denied a cake.

    There are plenty of bakeries that would be glad to have this couple's business.

    They're actually going to get a free cake by a celebrity chef no less.

    The people actually being denied their US Constitutional rights are the bakery owners by being forced to fulfill a contract wich contradicts their right of religious freedom of expression.

    Ms. Thomas has failed to raise that as a possibility in the two articles she's written on this. She doesn't have to agree with that interpretation but couldn't she at least acknolwedge the First Amendment to the US Constitution might conflict, if not supercede, Oregon State law?

    This gay couple's objection and the Yelp spam is all a set up. That transparent fact escapes our intrepid "News Anchor", Ms. Thomas (unless she agrees with the Gaysters and the Yelpers, which is entirely likely and would explain the ommissions).

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Constitutional right vs State Law
    February 7, 2013 6:30 pm
    This is a state issue for now, as outlined in the story: 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. As for whether it's a U.S. Constitutional right, who knows, maybe this case will make it all the way to the Supreme Court for an answer on that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mavila wrote...
    It's never a state issue...
    February 7, 2013 7:03 pm
    when it comes to the US Constitution - it's the supreme law of the land. This is (the state law) more of a challenge to the First Amendment which is clear and unequivocal that people have the right to free religious expression. While you're right that it will probably go to the SCOTUS eventually (which is the aim of this whole circus), the fact remains that this is a voluntary contract for an exchange of services that are widely available elsewhere. The gay couple is not harmed - they have many alternatives and the service has already been replaced for free, in fact. The bakery owners don't have any options other than to violate the free expression of their religious faith. And that is the crux of the matter.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    @Mavila
    February 7, 2013 7:07 pm
    Again ... anti-discrimination laws of this sort have been on the books for 50 years, and they have generally NOT had religious exemptions for private businesses. Somehow such anti-discrimination laws have survived, with the absence of religious exemptions for private businesses, that whole time. I see nothing about this case that brings up anything new.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    News Chich - regardless of political or social opinions one way ot the other.......
    February 8, 2013 4:36 am
    existing laws (presumably existing for a long time) SHOULD always be presumed Constitutional, until or if ruled otherwise - hopefully by the Supreme Court having ultimate jurisdiction. ... As with rights, the presumption should not be that some or any lower court - or administrative interpretation - can overrule the will of the people.

    That being the case, likely Oregon CAN find the bakery in violation of OREGON law. But in the absense of any other laws, the bakery's refusal appears constitutionally OK.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Again ...
    February 8, 2013 4:55 am
    If the baker's refusal to serve a member of a protected class is constitutionally OK, even though precluded by Oregon law, then anybody who refuses to serve a member of a protected class as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming religious freedom, is constitutionally OK. I'm pretty sure that issue has been hashed out in the courts during the past 50 years. And if not, expect to see a resurgence of whites-only establishments if the courts decide private business owners can decide for themselves whether to serve members of a protected class or not.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @OldDaveNJ
    February 8, 2013 6:53 am
    You're assuming that gays are automatically part of the protected class. The civil rights act specifies race, color, gender, religion and national origin. Title II also mentions the phrase "engaged in interstate commerce", but not to worry - the original wording and intent will be summarily ignored when this case makes it to the supreme court.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not an assumption ...
    February 8, 2013 7:08 am
    Sexual orientation is explicitly listed in the Oregon law; look it up. The point is that if personal religious beliefs fundamentally exempt private business owners from obeying anti-discrimination laws precluding refusal of service ... be they state laws like the one in Oregon or federal laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... they all go out the window.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Morning after pill
    February 8, 2013 9:50 am
    A federal judge found Washington State's law that forces pharmacists to sell the morning after pill against their religious objections to be unconstitutional.

    How the state can compel a private business to go against their First Amendment protection is beyond me.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not the same thing ...
    February 8, 2013 10:00 am
    The situation with pharmacists is different in that the ones involved have declined to provide a particular service to anyone. In this case, the baker offers a particular service to the general public, but wishes to deny it to a protected minority. And again, as far as the 1st Amendment goes, the lack of a religious exemption for private business owners wishing to refuse service to protected minorities has been recognized as standard and necessary to the enforcement of state and federal anti-discrimination laws in this country for half a century.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    So then...
    February 8, 2013 10:07 am
    ...the pharmacist is denying the pill to men?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    This is basic anti-discrimination law...
    February 7, 2013 6:50 pm
    There have been laws of this sort for nearly 50 years, ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. Private businesses have been precluded from refusing service to protected classes (e.g., based on race and religion) that whole time, and there generally have NOT been religious exemptions. In 2007, the good people of Oregon, acting through their elected representatives, made homosexuals a protected class. Again, while churches are exempt from the law, private businesses are not. That concept ... that religious-freedom rights prevail when it comes to how churches conduct themselves, and civil rights prevail when talking about public accommodations ... has been understood to be both proper and necessary. If private businesses were allowed to decide for themselves who they will and will not serve, based on claimed religious beliefs, anti-discrimination laws would be completely unenforceable. Again, this has been fundamental to the success of anti-discrimination laws for half a century. It is very much established law.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @mavila
    February 8, 2013 7:31 am
    So the bakery violating state law, and violating the rights of the couple who wanted to buy thier cake at THIS establishment is far less important than this bakery owner's right to violate the law 'for his beleifs'? I think that the selfishness of 'my rights are more important and thereby trump your rights while allowing me to violate the law' attitude is far, far worse than 'gay' any day of the week.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    Another Linda Thomas Gay post!
    February 7, 2013 6:45 pm
    I missed them the last two weeks. I guess we are back on track! Still love ya Linda, just tired of this conversation
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Daveismeniotyou
    February 7, 2013 7:00 pm
    I hear ya, love ya too. Night all.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • doublej wrote...
    Thank you Linda
    February 7, 2013 7:28 pm
    While I don't agree with most of your positions on things, I do appreciate that you follow the articles you write and respond to those of us who are commenting on them. Unlike that coward Dave Ross who spews his bias in his columns and then doesn't answer the many calling for him to further explain his views. Thank you for engaging with your audience.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    doublej WHY?
    February 8, 2013 1:39 pm
    Would Dave Ross engage idiots in any type of debate? Nothing would be accomplished by it.THese Rightys have their feet encased in cement on every issue Dave address's,if he likes chocolate they hate it.And Logic does not work on people who's positions were arrived at illogically.In case you have not noticed the purpose of these different blogs is to stimulate conversation not for the originator to engage in a debate with anyone.Dave Ross gets a high number of responses to his posts which shows he's doing his job perfectly
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    If I turned away a customer who was racist,
    February 7, 2013 8:39 pm
    would I be discriminating? In the court of public opinion would I be vilified for turning away their business because of their beliefs? Would I be violating State law or their constitutional right? The bakery that turned away the neo-Nazi request to have his son's name "Hitler" written on the cake comes to mind. I don't recall the outcome of that story.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Look at the law ...
    February 8, 2013 4:04 am
    Neo-Nazi's are not on the list of protected classes in Oregon, or in any other state, or in federal anti-discrimination laws.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    So then white supremists, based on their religious beliefs, could not be turned away?
    February 8, 2013 8:47 am
    The bakery would have to accept the request or be fined for discrimination based on the customers religious, albeit racist, beliefs. Yes?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Sure ...
    February 8, 2013 8:57 am
    If white supremacists wanted to have the baker make and sell a relatively generic wedding cake, he would have to do so.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    I guess it comes down to what's on the cake.
    February 8, 2013 9:04 am
    Otherwise, what's the big deal. A cakes a cake.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Right ...
    February 8, 2013 9:12 am
    They didn't get into details before the baker turned them away, but if it was the typical process ... picking a cake design out of a book, some standard "happy wedding" message and their names, stock figures for the top of the cake ... the baker would have to make and sell the cake, regardless of whether the customers were straight, gay, white, black, Jewish, or neo-Nazi Christian supremacists. The bakers probably would not be required to include non-standard bits of wording in frosting that they found offensive, or figures they don't keep in stock (like people having sex with animals, to use an example others like to bring up).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BeenThere wrote...
    If the bakery decides not to sell wedding cakes to couples engaging in pre-marital sex,
    February 8, 2013 9:34 am
    that's REALLY going to hurt business.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Quite the association, OldDave
    February 8, 2013 9:53 am
    Associating homosexuality with beastiality...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not my association ...
    February 8, 2013 10:01 am
    Like I said, it's an example OTHERS who support the baker like to bring up...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Seattle Dad wrote...
    Depends on their color
    February 8, 2013 2:13 pm
    or sex.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    Most people get their cakes from Pro-hetero bakeries
    February 7, 2013 11:42 pm
    And their cakes are delicious!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    The guys a marketing
    February 8, 2013 12:08 am
    genius.

    This same thing worked, the same way, in Colorado last fall. A huge (if temporary) influx of support from people pleased to see somebody turning away gay customers.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not necessarily ...
    February 8, 2013 4:13 am
    I don't know if the Colorado couple ever filed a complaint with the state. (It is illegal to turn away gay customers in Colorado, just as in Oregon.) But the couple in Oregon has filed a complaint with the state, and the state is investigating what is a pretty clear violation of Oregon state law. They'd have to sell quite a few cakes to make up for the maximum penalty ... which I think is $50,000. BTW, the very same thing also happened in NJ, and once the baker understood the state law, and the likely consequences, she changed her tune.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Seattle Dad wrote...
    Chick fil a?
    February 8, 2013 3:16 pm
    I thought that was down south
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    This is what makes America.
    February 8, 2013 5:18 am
    FREEDOM. The left must be pissed!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Question ...
    February 8, 2013 5:27 am
    Do you support the freedom to open a whites-only business?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Color of skin...
    February 8, 2013 9:54 am
    ...is not a choice.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Neither is sexual orientation ...
    February 8, 2013 10:05 am
    And as far as the law goes, it doesn't matter. Refusal of service due to sexual orientation is viewed as being exactly the same as refusal of service due to race or religion. Again, you have to decide if your problem is with having both of those on the list of protected classes, or if it is a general objection to the government placing limits on 1st Amendment freedoms in order to better secure civil rights. If you really believe that a private business owner should have the right to refuse service to a protected class, based on their religious beliefs, you have to recognize that that would hold both for those that want to refuse service based on sexual orientation, AND those who want to refuse service based on race.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • imanegro wrote...
    Prove it
    February 11, 2013 3:14 pm
    .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    of course its not a choice
    May 15, 2013 2:43 pm
    that being gay is or is not a choice? ok-tell us when you chose to be straight-PROVEN!! dummy...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    wrong
    May 15, 2013 2:42 pm
    religion is a choice and thats protected (hint -being gay is no choice, idiot-all psychologists now agree it is at least partly innate-sorry bigot)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    Well there's a Black Entertainment channel....
    February 8, 2013 3:39 pm
    That's not a lot different!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Why support the baker??
    February 8, 2013 5:42 am
    People who support this baker need to decide just why they do. Is it because you object to the fact that the people of Oregon (and those in other states as well), have included homosexuals on the list of protected classes, along with (for example) African-Americans? If so, your problem is with the people in these states who passed laws establishing sexual orientation as being on a par with race and religion. But if the more fundamental reason involves the broader question of whether government should be able to preclude private businesses from refusing service to members of protected minorities, based on religious beliefs, that is a very different thing. And if objecting to that level of government involvement is your reason for supporting the baker, at least be honest and somewhat coherent, and acknowledge that refusing service to a same-gender couple because of religious beliefs is no different than white supremacists -- whose views on the separation of the races have always been strongly guided by religious beliefs -- refusing service to African Americans.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    in this case...
    February 8, 2013 7:13 am
    i just think the business should be allowed to refuse service if their creation is being made for something they don't believe in, or condone.

    what about music? if someone were to comission a song from a songwriter, but they want it to be about something the songwriter doesn't believe in, does the songwriter need to be FORCED to do it? OR, fined if he does't? it's basically the same thing. these people don't want to support this kind of union. let them miss out on that market. they shouldn't be punished for it other thant he eventual (possible) financial loss.

    it just seems like a slippery slope.

    i wonder if this couple were to have just been buying a birthday cake, would they be denied then?

    on the other hand, would this even be an issue if they just didn't give the couple a reason for not making the cake? just said, "i'm sorry, we're not going to be able to fulfill your order." and left it at that.

    this is a really interesting story.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not the same thing ...
    February 8, 2013 7:19 am
    They didn't get into details before the baker turned them away, but there is no substantive difference between a wedding cake for a straight or gay wedding celebration. Same ingredients, same designs (probably chosen from a book), same pans, same ovens, same processes, same stock items. That is very different from commissioning a song. Also, had the baker not specified a reason, it would still have been illegal, but he just wouldn't have provided such direct evidence of his crime. A pattern of such discrimination over time, however, if/when it became evident, would be grounds for prosecution ... even if he never disclosed his reason.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    It is the same thing
    February 8, 2013 9:59 am
    If an artist who is commissioned to sculpt figures of straight couples in embrace is approached by a gay couple to commission a sculpture of themselves in embrace against the artists religious beliefs, would he then be compelled by law to do so?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not the same thing ...
    February 8, 2013 10:09 am
    An artist probably would not be required to do that, because there is a substantive difference in the product. There typically is no substantive difference between cakes for straight and same-gender weddings.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    a cake is a creation...
    February 8, 2013 11:08 am
    a song is a creation.

    the creator should be able to decide of he or she wants to take the comission on their creation. the creator shouldn't, then, be forced to comply, or fined if they don't. if you don't see how that should feel wrong, you've made up your mind and it's not worth arguing with you.

    it is no different. you are wrong.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    A hamburger is a creation ...
    February 8, 2013 11:13 am
    A car is a creation ... a laptop is a creation ... General Tsao's chicken is a creation ... a calendar is a creation ... a recliner is a creation. The creators of all those things should be able to decide if he or she wants to sell their creations to a protected minority??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    BTW ...
    February 8, 2013 11:27 am
    It might be worth arguing with me if anybody here had anybody at all said anything that makes any sense. People continue to deny that anti-discrimination laws have lacked religious exemptions for private business owners for half a century. And they continue to deny that allowing such religious exemptions for private business owners who wish to refuse service to a protected minority, based on their private religious beliefs, would render all such anti-discrimination laws unenforceable.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    There is no substantive difference!
    February 8, 2013 11:14 am
    The medium is the medium. Whether marble, granite, bronze, or cake. It is a work of art.

    Where any substantive difference lies is in that the cake is being made for what a Christian believes to be a religious sacrament. Why should they be compelled to do something that goes in direct opposition of their Christian faith?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    The logical conclusion ...
    February 8, 2013 11:24 am
    If you want to go that way, at least go until you reach the logical conclusion. The medium is the medium?? Then steak is a medium, all the elements that go into a car or a computer is the medium, etc. Why should somebody be compelled to do something that goes in direct opposition to their religious beliefs? If their religious beliefs dictate that people of different races shouldn't congregate in their business establishment ... i.e.,if they wish to operate a whites-only business ... and food is their medium ... then why should anybody stop them from operating a whites-only restaurant ... or a whites-only car dealership or computer store.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    You seem to miss a very important point
    February 8, 2013 12:34 pm
    To a Christian, marriage is a religious sacrament.

    Seriously, you're now just being belligerent.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not at all ...
    February 8, 2013 12:47 pm
    To a white separatist Christian, keeping the races from co-mingling is a religious dictate. You appear to want to have religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for Christians who hold the same beliefs you do, but not for Christians who hold beliefs you find offensive. And the law doesn't work that way. That is not belligerence on my part ... it is a failure on your part to recognize the reality of the situation. Simple question ... should business owners have the right to refuse service to protected classes of people if their religious beliefs so dictate? Yes or no question, without regard to what those religious beliefs might be.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    NOPE
    May 15, 2013 2:44 pm
    doesnt matter-in the law, marriage has nothing to do with rleigion
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sean wrote...
    Maybe PRIVATE businesses SHOULD be allowed...
    February 8, 2013 3:43 pm
    To not serve blacks or whites or short people or bald people or whomever the heII they want to not serve. The market would even it all out and for the most part these businesses wouldn't last long. It's pretty apparent from this story that a heck of a lot of people support a private business' right to serve whomever they want to serve.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }