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

  • Moondoggie wrote...
    I'm a Pro-Life Entertainer
    February 8, 2013 5:50 am
    If Planned Parenthood wants me to do my stand-up act at their convention, Do I have to tell dead baby jokes?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    Gay Rights Parade
    February 8, 2013 5:54 am
    Or if the Gay Alliance wants to hire me to lead the parade, do I have to take the job? Planned Parenthood may not be a protected class, but the gays sure are.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Distinctions ...
    February 8, 2013 6:09 am
    Anti-discrimination laws, either explicitly in their wording, or as adjudicated by the courts, generally don't apply as rigorously when direct involvement/attendance of a private business owner in an event he had religious objections to are involved. (I think cases involving wedding photographers have gone both ways.) I also am not sure that entertainers are considered businesses of public accommodation; I suspect not.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    I think it's tragic
    February 8, 2013 6:59 am
    that government is going to intervene and possibly put this bakery out of business with the potential fines. People need to stop running to the government because they don't think something isn't fair; guess what? Life isn't fair, get over it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Same question to you ...
    February 8, 2013 7:10 am
    Do you favor the right of people to open whites-only businesses?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    that's not quite the same...
    February 8, 2013 7:16 am
    this is about religious beliefs. not racism.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not a real distinction ...
    February 8, 2013 7:22 am
    White separatists have always been strongly motivated by religious beliefs pertaining to the separation of the races. If you say one private business owner can refuse service to gay people because of their religious beliefs, citing the 1st Amendment as the fundamental guiding principle, you have to agree also that people wanting to open a whites-only restaurant because of their religious beliefs have that same right.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    no.
    February 8, 2013 11:16 am
    again. this is about religious expression. not race. you keep trying to relate this to the "whites only" argument. but, this isn't the same.

    they didn't say they wouldn't serve the couple AT ALL. they said they wouldn't make a cake for a specific ceremony. one they belive is between a man and a woman. that's NOT a race issue. this has NOTHING to do with RACE. i'm sure plenty of gay people have bought stuff from this bakery in the past. just not a cake.

    i support gay marriage. i don't think these people necessarily have the "good christian morals" that they might think they do. BUT, i also don't think it's worth this much trouble. i don't they should be fined. i think, if it's such a big deal, that people should let their wallets do the talking and we'll see how it all pans out.

    not worth all the hoopla though.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    You miss the point ...
    February 8, 2013 11:29 am
    Some people have religious objections to gay marriage. Some people have religious objections to people of different races intermingling in a restaurant. If you find that the first kind of people have the right to refuse service because of their religious beliefs, you also have to recognize the right of the second kind of people to refuse service because of theirs.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    DUMB
    May 15, 2013 2:46 pm
    YOU DONT GET IT, DUMDUM-BAKING A CAKE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS EVENT
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @OldDave
    February 8, 2013 7:38 am
    I'll take that - Yes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    At least you're honest and consistent ...
    February 8, 2013 7:46 am
    I don't think most people would want to return to those days where discrimination among private businesses was rampant ... and I don't think it's remotely likely to happen legislatively or judicially ... but at least you're being honest and consistent.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raymong wrote...
    No where
    February 8, 2013 10:18 am
    No where in my bible does it talk about me as a Christian discriminating against any race of people. Homosexials are not a race, they are not handycapped, elderly, or poor they are not physically broke and no one is denying them a cool drink of water or the use of the facilities. I would bet if they were hungry these folks would of fed them. However, they did deny them thier services and should have the right to do so under our system of government without state of federal interference or ours for that matter. If like minded folks don't want to do business here at this bakery because they don't agree with thier philosphy/religious belives so be, but then walk away leave them alone. As a Christian I know that God has a lot to say about homosexuality, He also has a lot to say about a multidude of other sins as well, all of which I must be consistently on the watch not to commit. Agreeing with a worldly view over His is one of them. As for me and my house I will serve the Lord, and not man and his ways, I believe these folks should be allowed to do the same.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Doesn't matter ...
    February 8, 2013 10:24 am
    White separatists don't even necessarily think of it as discriminating. They just find justification in the Bible for keeping the races separate. It doesn't matter if you or I disagree with their Biblical interpretation. If people truly should be exempted from following anti-discrimination laws because of their religious beliefs, then the same argument applies to those want to refuse service to same-gender couples (i.e., those who hold religious beliefs you agree with), as well as those who want to refuse service to blacks (even if you disagree with their religious beliefs).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raymong wrote...
    It does matter
    February 8, 2013 12:12 pm
    There a millions of christians who don't agree with the few hundered white separatists. To even bring them into the conversation as some sort of comparison is disengenious. Millions of Christians did not discriminate against other races, only a few weak minded. That is still true today. Should we give up believing what our God says because someone else wants to push thier agenda down our throats? That is also true on our sides. Yet, we are to bring the gospel to all the world, sometimes we have to talk. I say this because I know you would bring it up. Many of us have died because of our belief, lost homes and property. That should not happen here in America, Oregon has no right to deny these people to follow thier regelious beliefs. Again I say this is not about "race". A tree cannot reproduce itself if there is no place for the seed to germinate. A male/male or female/female cannot reproduce on thier own, therefore cannot become a race.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not about how many agree ...
    February 8, 2013 12:28 pm
    This has nothing to do with how many Christians hold racist beliefs versus how many do not. This is about a basic principle regarding anti-discrimination laws. Should the government be able to preclude private businesses from refusing service to a protected minority, based on their religious beliefs? It is a simple yes or no question. If your answer is yes, then Oregon has the right to enact laws that prevent Christian business owners from refusing service to gay customers. If your answer is no, then you are agreeing that businesses owners should be allowed to refuse service to black customers if their religious beliefs so dictate. It really is very simple, and it has nothing to do with your religious beliefs about homosexuality.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raymong wrote...
    Yes it does...
    February 8, 2013 2:05 pm
    My answer is yes, and it has everything to do with Christian beliefs about homosexuality. The Christian agrees with God so in this country he has that right and to follow through with by following his/heart concerning this matter. They don't agree with the worlds view of homosexual marrage and niether does God, so they acted on those belives. I'll bet if one or both came in and just wanted a cake they would of made it. That is not the same as a black person coming in and being refused not because of what he wanted on the cake but because of the color of his skin. That is discrimination.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    You can't have it both ways ...
    February 8, 2013 2:20 pm
    If you want the law to recognize your right to refuse service to same-gender couples because of your religious beliefs, you have to recognize that the law will also have to recognize the right of others with religiously-motivated separatist beliefs to operate whites-only businesses. You can't have it both ways.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    The alternative ...
    February 8, 2013 2:22 pm
    The alternative is to accept the fact that the people, acting through their elected representatives, can decide which groups warrant protected-class status when it comes to public accommodations REGARDLESS of business owner's religious views ... which is precisely what many states, including Oregon, have done. Those are your only two choices.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raymong wrote...
    No...
    February 8, 2013 6:08 pm
    This isn't about public accommodations,it's about service.The public are welcome to come in and purchase my product or not.As the owner I have the right to refuse. The Gov.has no right to tell me who,what,when or how to operate my business. Nor does the public,except that if they don't like my business policies they don't shop,I lose my business.But we are,our society today,is ruled not by common sense,but by emotions.Everyone that disagrees with current progressive policies is a hate monger. I just realized something,as a Christian in this matter,we are to be separatists,regarding the matter of refusing service because of race;that is anti Christian as I understand Christ and therefore should be considered discriminatory. The Christian should never hate,and should never capitulate to the pressures of the social behavior around them but only to God. I would bake them a cake but I would not promote the life style.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    You apparently don't know what "public accommodations are" ...
    February 8, 2013 6:25 pm
    From Merriam-Webster: "accommodation: something supplied for convenience or to satisfy a need: as lodging, FOOD, SERVICES, and traveling space or related services." (Caps are mine.) From Oregon state law (http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/659a.html): "A place of public accommodation ... means any PLACE OR SERVICE offering to the PUBLIC accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of GOODS, SERVICES, lodgings, amusements or otherwise." (Caps mine.) Also from the same Oregon state law: "The opportunity to obtain employment or housing or to use and enjoy places of PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION without unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age or disability hereby is recognized as and declared to be a civil right."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raymong wrote...
    Wrong
    February 8, 2013 8:17 pm
    I'll give you the definition guess I should of looked it up but it doesn't make the law RIGHT(my caps),Go back and read what I've written.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    I read what you wrote again ...
    February 9, 2013 4:11 am
    You still haven't given a clear answer to the key question. Should the government be able to preclude private businesses from refusing service to protected minorities, based on their religious beliefs? You said that yes, you believe they should ... which is precisely what the Oregon law does. If you disagree with the fact that homosexuals are on the list of protected minorities, that is quite another question ... one that that does not involve religious freedom, but rather reflects your disagreement with equating sexual orientation and race, religion, etc. under the law.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Good point Raymong
    February 8, 2013 10:29 am
    " I would bet if they were hungry these folks would of fed them" Yes they most likely would have. All too often this kind of thing is tagged by the left as racist, bigoted, hateful and homophobic. But sometimes it's none of the above.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    nope
    May 15, 2013 2:49 pm
    AND SOMETIMES IT IS LIKE IN THIS CASE-do they refuse service to second marriages? thats just as "sinful" as being gay..how about to adulterers?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Dave
    February 8, 2013 10:35 pm
    Nobody wants to return that era. I'm just a believer in the concept that if I'm not taking someone's stuff, harming or proactively harassing them in any way and am not subsidized by the government body in question(do NOT refer to the roads, cops and fire department as subsidized - I pay MORE for them than most) I should be free to deal with whom I want for whatever reason. Despite the Civil Rights Act's Title II and its clones in the states, the concept of freedom of association is as American as apple pie. People are genuinely shocked when they figure out that laws have been passed and upheld to the contrary. Government overreach is nothing new - they've been doing it since Hamilton starting bending Washington's ear.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    That's fine ...
    February 9, 2013 4:12 am
    Just recognize that what you believe in, in fact, DOES imply a return to that era. Be self-consistent.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Dave
    February 10, 2013 4:05 pm
    Imply has little footing in reality. Removal of Title II from the Civil Rights Act would not result in separate drinking fountains or blacks riding on the back of the bus. Let the electorate and its representatives control PUBLIC policy. Private policy will eventually follow of its own free will.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • circuitfr wrote...
    OldDaveNJ
    February 8, 2013 6:13 pm
    Dave, shutup with that stupid question. The answer is YES, if a business owner (private) mind you wants to open up a whites only business, he should. If a black person wants to open up a blacks only business, he should. If a gay bar wants only gays, they should, if a straight bar wants only straight people, they should!!! When it comes to private property, why shouldn't they? If the free market decides it's dumb, that business will not survive, if the free market has a place for it, so be it. The black during the civil rights movement were having CRIMES committed against them. Discrimination on PUBLIC property and PUBLIC transportation, etc...etc...People would beat them up for their skin color. That is WRONG. It is a CRIME. But the liberal pukes of that era didn't do a DARN thing to prosecute the racists hate filled morons of the time. A private business owner on his OWN property should be able to do whatever the heck he wants. Just like at my house. People don't have a RIGHT to force me to live a certain way on MY property when what I DO doesn't AFFECT them AT ALL. GET IT YOU FREAK.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Are you aware that the law has said NO for 50 years??
    February 8, 2013 6:48 pm
    State and federal laws have precluded things like whites-only businesses for half a century. If you think that all the anti-discrimination laws pertaining to public accommodations during that time should be repealed, that is your right. And it is at least consistent with support for this baker, so I thank you for that. But most people here don't seem to have a clue that support for the baker implies support for the repeal of such laws; I am trying to get people to understand and acknowledge that. I personally don't think most people would support the repeal of such laws, or a return to the days of whites-only restaurants, but that is just my opinion.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    dumb
    May 15, 2013 2:50 pm
    try to THINK< dumdum-what if the only gas station for 60 miles didnt serve blacks? thats ok? what about a grocery store that didnt serve jews? see how dumb you are-doesnt work like that-teh laws in place are a GOOD thing
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    Glad to hear
    February 8, 2013 7:14 am
    Glad to see people step up for those who are willing to make a stand. I can almost guarantee these lesbos picked this guy knowing there would be an issue. The guy should be able to run his business anyway he wants. There are plenty of other bakeries with owners of less conviction that could provide a lesbo cake.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    the more i read about this...
    February 8, 2013 7:17 am
    the more i do feel like this bakery was singled out.

    like they expected the result.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    On what basis??
    February 8, 2013 7:23 am
    They went there because another member of the extended family had previously purchased a wedding cake and were pleased with the result.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    not necessarily singled out for being religious...
    February 8, 2013 9:16 am
    but, for what's happening after their cake rejection. the couple could EASILY have just written a bad review for them and then gone to a different bakery.

    IF the "abomination" comment was made, i understand being miffed. BUT, it feels like the couple is TRYING to get lots of miles out of this. problem is, you just can't FORCE people to accept your lifestyle, ANY lifestyle. so, making laws that protect a lifestyle (whether it's by choice, or birth) seems a little over the top. what it i was a satanist? could i sue them too, for them rejecting my request for a satanist themed cake? my freedom of religion says i can woship whatever/whomever i choose. should i be able to sue a business for not servicing my request based on their beliefs in that case?

    this is getting a LOT of attention and it feels like the couple doesn't mind much. too much reality tv, i guess. people don't mind waving their "HEY!!! LOOK AT ME!!!" flags as much anymore.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not about forcing a lifestyle ...
    February 8, 2013 9:28 am
    First, I've heard no mention of a lawsuit. The baker pretty clearly violated Oregon state anti-discrimination laws, and the couple filed a complaint with the appropriate state commission. Second, all they wanted was to get a wedding cake ... a standard item the bakery makes and sells; that is not forcing their "lifestyle" on anyone. Third, if a pair of satanists came in and wanted to buy a fairly generic wedding cake, under state (and, in that case, federal) law, the baker could not refuse to serve them because of their religious beliefs. The baker would not be compelled to write non-standard satanic bits of text in frosting, or use satanic figurines that they don't keep in stock ... just like they likely wouldn't have to write non-standard gay-specific bits of text in frosting or use figurines they don't keep in stock for a gay couple. But yes ... for the most part the baker is required to serve satanists, as long as they don't request anything that deviates substantively from the kinds of wedding cakes they provide the general public.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    the real issue here...
    February 8, 2013 11:24 am
    is what amendment trumps the other in this case?

    these people claim, and have scripture (albeit from the extra wordy old testament book of lividicus) that they cite, that gay marriage is wrong. if they don't believe in the practice, why do they have to be forced by state law to be okay with that lifestyle (yep, brought that word back!) or face a fine?

    it just seems a little wrong. EVEN IF i don't agree with their beliefs. which i don't.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raymong wrote...
    Wrong
    February 8, 2013 6:15 pm
    I think the State law or ordinance is wrong,even if it is legal by Federal law.Having said that,both are Americans,they stood for their believes,now grow up and leave each other alone.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Pleased with the result?
    February 8, 2013 10:31 am
    Ok but is there any chance at this point that this gay couple could be pleased with the result? If you honestly think that's the objective here you're just kidding yourself.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Moot point ...
    February 8, 2013 10:40 am
    They likely would have been pleased with the result had the baker served them. Given that he broke state law by refusing service, the goal now is obviously to see that the law is applied to the business. Nobody will be pleased with the result, but non-enforcement of laws is not the answer. They exist for a reason.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Moot point? Not really.
    February 8, 2013 4:43 pm
    The objective of these two women isn't to represent the virtues of obeying laws. They are crusaders who intend to have every action they make in the name of their sexual orientation a political and social statement. 5 will get you 10 they also have contempt for these proprietors because they are christian and would like nothing more than to forcefeed their agenda on these people. That's all it is. That's exactly why I DO NOT stand behind the LGBT cause. Otherwise I couldn't care less who or what they like to do their thing with.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Except ...
    February 8, 2013 5:16 pm
    Everything you just said ... every characterization of their motives and feelings ... is a complete fabrication, completely made up with no evidence, that ignores the obvious. They went there to buy a wedding cake because they have wedding plans, and one of their moms had purchased a wedding cake there previously and had a good experience. There is nothing suspicious or unusual about them going there to buy a wedding cake. And they are upset because they were discriminated against in violation of the law. Nothing surprising about that, either. You have no idea what their views of Christianity are, or whether they are even Christian themselves. The fact that you have to fabrication negative characterizations of this couple to justify your disdain for LGBT rights tells me it has much more to do with your own personal biases than with reality.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Believe what you want
    February 8, 2013 9:11 pm
    It's pretty obvious what their motives are. And yes, most of them do have contempt for christians and their beliefs, what's why they always like to call christians who disagree with them "hate-filled, racist, bigoted homophobics." And it's not a fabrication. It's a safe assumption based on strong tendencies. There aren't very many LBGT people who respect christians, their views or their right to object to their lifestyle. THAT is not a fabrication neither, it's a fact. And ok, I get your point. It's the law of the state of Oregon that these people be forced to make a lesbian couple a wedding cake against their will. But you see the quandary that creates? I believe the law is wrong and should be changed, period. And this lesbian couple should move on. Leave the proprietors to their beliefs and their right to exercise them. Go to the competition, get their cake done up, get married and live happily ever after. Everybody wins and I'd have a lot more respect for them. But don't kid yourself into thinking at this stage it's all about the good experience of one of their moms. Their own experience has been blown out of the water so there's no way they can salvage a good experience out of this except for the satisfaction of forcefeeding their lifestyle down the throats of people who don't believe as they do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    It's not a matter of belief, but fact ...
    February 9, 2013 4:17 am
    I know quite a few gay people and not one has contempt for Christians. The majority are Christians themselves. You are believing a negative stereotype about gay people ... and it's true that discussion forums like this tend to reinforce that kind of stereotype ... but it's simply not true. And, as I have been asking all along, if you disagree with the law, is it because you would like people to have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but not race or religion ... or do you object to ALL prohibitions against discrimination by businesses?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    dumb
    May 15, 2013 2:51 pm
    youre moronic
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Yeah, singled out
    February 8, 2013 7:54 am
    You go in to a bakery to order a wedding cake and someone screams that you are an abomination.

    The idiot baker was asking for it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Unlikely they said that
    February 8, 2013 10:37 am
    The proprietors deny calling the couple an "abomination" and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. That was just a fabrication by the Huffington Post or wherever it came from just to vilify the owners of the bakery and make them look like zealots. A fabrication and an exaggeration, much like your comment about them "screaming" the word at them. Who said anything about screaming at them?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Actually, he did ...
    February 8, 2013 11:16 am
    In an interview with the baker, he did acknowledge quoting one of the Levitical passages ... the ones that characterize people of the same gender that lay with each other as abominations ... to the women. So (1) he didn't actually personally call the abominations, but (2) he did quote a Biblical passage characterizing same-gender couples as "abominations," using that word, and in obvious reference to the couple.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ohyea53 wrote...
    Drove 21 miles and Had a Red Velvet cup cake yesterday
    February 8, 2013 7:35 am
    It was moist and really good. BTW their business is booming!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    ohyeah....I suspect that cupcake did not have...
    February 8, 2013 7:59 am
    pink frosting. :-)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    temporary
    May 15, 2013 2:51 pm
    until they get levied with fines-then theyll go under
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ohyea53 wrote...
    No Chuck just the standard
    February 8, 2013 8:08 am
    creamcheese frosting. BTW they are really very nice people. It's ashame they are in this mess . Believe me they sure as heck don't want all this attention.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sohojo wrote...
    It's okay to be Gay
    February 8, 2013 8:10 am
    You just need to realize, it is not accepted by all. Move on, someone else will bake you a cake.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    just like Chik Fila
    February 8, 2013 8:18 am
    haters come out in droves to support other haters, but it's not sustainable. Chick Fila is hurting now.

    Equality always trumps hate, throughout history. These people will be out of business by next year unless they change their ways.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Chick-fil-A...
    February 8, 2013 8:25 am
    ... is actually doing just fine business-wise. But they also responded to last year's protests by ceasing to use customer proceeds to fund anti-gay lobbying groups. (So it's kind of a win-win situation ... I make even start patronizing them.) So yes, in a sense equality did win out in the Chick-fil-A situation, though not quite in the way you suggest.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    you don't know what you're talking about, calapete...
    February 8, 2013 9:20 am
    Chick Fil-A is probably one of the most popular fast food chains out there these days! the "haters" who picketed them, actually didn't have ANY effect on sales. maybe caused a little spike UP, but didn't ANY damage in the long run.

    MOST of my liberal friends didn't care enough about what the owner of the company said to stop eating chicken from a fast food place.

    so, sorry. you're dead wrong on this one.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not about what Chick-fil-A said ...
    February 8, 2013 9:48 am
    A lot of people were under the misunderstanding that the reaction to Chick-fil-A had to do with the beliefs or statements of it's CEO. It wasn't. It had to do with the fact that Chick-fil-A used to take a portion of its customer proceeds and donate them to anti-gay lobbying groups working for laws that hurt same-gender couples and their families. The more clearly you understood that, the less likely you were to patronize their restaurants. Fortunately, they have since stopped funding such organizations.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Which laws are those?
    February 8, 2013 10:02 am
    You know, that "hurt" gays?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    To mention just a few...
    February 8, 2013 10:11 am
    Laws that deny state recognition of civil marriages for same-gender couples deprive them of social security survivor benefits, employer health-plan benefit protections, beneficial tax options available to many straight married couples, joint adoption rights, etc.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    wrong...
    February 8, 2013 11:30 am
    again. the big outcry happened when the CEO made anti-gay statements. THAT sparked the protests.

    the other stuff happened before, but it was the CEO's statements A YEAR afterwards that set off the protests.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    I didn't say that ...
    February 9, 2013 4:19 am
    I didn't deny the recent outcry happened when the CEO made anti-gay statements. I said the outcry, and calls to not buy their food, were primarily directed against the fact that they funded anti-gay lobbying groups.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • monkeyal wrote...
    "We reserve the right to
    February 8, 2013 8:34 am
    refuse service to anyone...No shirt, No shoes, No service...". I love Pro-Choice and the choise not to serve!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Monkey
    February 8, 2013 10:46 pm
    I could not, in good conscious, refuse "service" to the likes of Selma Hayek, should she show up at my establishment sans shoes and shirt.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Seattle Dad wrote...
    Linda opposes homophobia
    February 8, 2013 8:39 am
    but not Christianphobia. Refusing to recognize a gay couple's ceremony as a marriage is not hate. It's there religous point of view. The hatred is what the homosexual agenda is bringing against this bakery. Linda fails to recognize the gay rights agenda for what it is.... an intolerant, hate filled attack on the second amendment's protection where government shall make no law establishing religion, yet the State of Oregon seems to be infringing on that. As a pre-emptive strike, please don't relate it to racial discrimination. There is no religous basis for that. That's why Christian's led the fight to abolish slavery and racial discrimination.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Sigh ...
    February 8, 2013 8:53 am
    (1) Baking and selling a wedding cake -- a standard item made and sold by bakers everywhere -- to a same-gender couple is NOT recognizing their ceremony as a marriage. (2) The second amendment has to do with the right to bear arms. (3) The right of government to restrict the ability of private businesses to refuse service to protected classes of people has been recognized for 50 years as a legitimate and necessary element of anti-discrimination laws that secure civil rights for minorities. It has never, in that half-century, been judged to be an improper infringement of 1st-Amendment religious-freedom rights. (4) No religious basis for racial discrimination?? Please take a high-school history class. Religious beliefs have always been a key element of white supremacist/separatist groups. You and I may disagree with them, but if you really believe that a person's religious beliefs, regardless of what they may be, exempt them from refusing service to protected minorities, then you have to acknowledge that they will have the same right to refuse service to black people. To deny that is just being blatantly inconsistent.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Baking a WEDDING cake...
    February 8, 2013 10:04 am
    ...IS a recognition of their ceremony. What else does the cake do???
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    ummm ... celebration of the participants?
    February 8, 2013 10:16 am
    People who sell anything that end up being used in a private celebration ... cups, drinks, cakes, table cloths, appetizers ... are pretty clearly not doing so because they in any sense are expression a view about the event. They sell things because that is what they do as a business. The people buy those things to celebrate the occasion ... it doesn't imply anything about the beliefs of the vendors.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Not willing to give an honest answer?
    February 8, 2013 11:23 am
    There you go.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    Not able to have a coherent answer?
    February 8, 2013 11:38 am
    Actually, you're last couple of responses have been sufficiently incoherent, I'm not even quite sure what you're getting at, much less able to respond to ...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    What is the cake in celebration of?
    February 8, 2013 12:37 pm
    A birthday? Someone's retirement? Or is it in celebration of a religious sacrament?

    Care to give an honest answer?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • OldDaveNJ wrote...
    It's not a matter of what, but of who...
    February 8, 2013 1:25 pm
    For the couple, and the couple's friends and family members, it is a celebration of their wedding/union. It may or may not have religious meaning for the celebrants since many gay couples are religious/Christian; it doesn't really matter as far as this discussion goes. What is is NOT is a celebration of the wedding/union by the people that sold the decorations, the food, the cake, the coffee, etc. that is used in the celebration. It is NOT a celebration, or participation, or endorsement of any sort by those people.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    wrong
    May 15, 2013 2:54 pm
    you eat it after the ceremony-irrelevant-they broke the law
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Raymong wrote...
    How do I become a protected class?
    February 8, 2013 6:39 pm
    I am a white male,nearly 59there are a lot us that fit that category,however,I'm only 5`2"tall.:)Over the years I have been denied jobs because of my size,and let go because I usually have to adapt to the work to be done to my size,makes some folks uncomfortable.Most counters are built for the taller folks,I probably would of been carded at that bakery.So,how do I get a special classification,how do I get special consideration from the Nanny state? Just wondering...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    short people got no reason...
    May 15, 2013 2:54 pm
    you fill out a short form...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Normandy wrote...
    duh
    May 15, 2013 2:54 pm
    baking is not religious, dumdum
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }