Skip to comments.Baker Who Refused To Make Wedding Cake For Lesbian Couple Under Investigation (Gresham, Oregon)
Posted on 02/02/2013 12:43:35 PM PST by drewh
Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon, is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint.
An Oregon baker has refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, allegedly calling them 'abominations unto the Lord.'
Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint.
The woman claims Klein refused to take an order from her partner when he learned the cake was for a gay marriage.
Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement office is now looking into the case to determine whether the baker broke the law by discriminating against the couple.
The Oregon Equality Act 2007 outlaws discrimination by an individual or a business against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Klein denied calling the women 'abominations' but admitted to rejecting their custom.
'I apologized for wasting their time and said we don't do same-sex marriages,' he told KATU.
'I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, (it's) just something I believe in very strongly.'
He told the news station his religious beliefs were more important than making money and the state law. Religious: The bakery has clear symbols of Klein's faith on its walls, pictured
'If I have to be, I guess, be penalized for my beliefs, then I guess, well, that'll be what it is,' he said, adding that, in his view, his constitutional rights should override Oregon law.
'My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it,' Klein said.
The case will likely fall to a judge to decide. The women said they didn't want to talk about the complaint until they received further legal advice.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I’ve emailed him contact information for the ACLJ and the Liberty Counsel. Either one will defend him for free. Paul demanded his rights as a Roman citizen, so a Christian can demand his rights as a US citizen!
In court then he would have to produce the evidence that his religion did indeed specify such -- but such is not the case we are talking about on this thread: what we have here is very obviously some people trying to control another's freedom of conscience.
I know both gay and militant gay people. The gay people are normal and keep it in the bedroom. The militant gay people will let you know they are gay no matter what the situation. The former are pleasant and personable to be around, the latter are not.
I know both fun and mean alcoholics. The former are pleasant and personable to be around, the latter are not.
Aren’t both homosexuality and alcoholism considered disorders?
Why? The old Son of Cain argument could still hold sway with some. What compelling reason of the state is there to trample over someone's rights? Because that was what was supposed to be required in these inane laws - it must have a compelling reason: a compelling reason isn't having to frequent another business, or even frequenting a business which is a bit of a drive. In the context of this thread, EVERY cake business would have to start refusing to make cakes for the ceremony that gays like to pretend is marriage, and no business pops up to take advantage of the huge (HAHAHAH) hole in the marketplace.
This isn't the case here, or the case in many laws now imposed by states and the federal government. None can handle the slightest bit of examination when it comes to examining the reason behind the law.
Yes, but Homosexuals destroy the Society, so they are not "just anyone" to the traitors in office.
Equality for all humans, except those who do not make the Presidents list of favorites. Those are sub-humans. Ain't liberal Utopia grand?
Forced by government to go against your religious faith?
Christian bakery - Who says the cake has to be attractive or tasty? Maybe you forgot the sugar.
Christian photographer - Who says the pictures have to turn out any good? Maybe your equipment had issues.
We now have two choices:
1) Refuse service when we would find that service immoral and face the consequences of exercising our God-given and constitutionally protected human rights in a post-freedom America, or
2) Point out that we object to celebrating perversion and that the quality of products or services may suffer because we cannot put our enthusiasm into a revolting mockery of a solemn ceremony, then quote an outrageous price for the services that entitled gay activists demand, hoping the perverts will go away peacefully.
If phrased right, the perverts will know we don’t wish to accommodate them but will be unable to sue. Then we just make sure the contract specifies no penalty beyond a full refund for failing to deliver as scheduled. If they demand service against our will, they are demanding slavery, and they deserve to have their “celebration” ruined by having no cake when we cancel at the last minute due to a baking failure.
My imagination is simply beggared. Investigated for what? Charged with what? When did a deviant and self-destructive behavior get “civil rights?”
Ok...then let’s all file suit against any muslim food establishment that refuses to stock and sell pork
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
They can call their business ‘Wedding Gaykes’.
Glad to hear it, and glad you’ve the moral guns to stick by your opinions, and the opinions of God.
THIS CAN GET TOUCHY. If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims his religion forbids him from serving blacks, I dont think hell have much of a case.
Mr. Klein is referring here to the First Amendment, which is a part of the Bill of Rights, which in turn is part of some old parchment written hundreds of years ago.
Klein expects modern political-hack judges to give a rat's ass about that kind of crap?
This is nothing more than harassment and attempted intimidation of a private business. Lord, I do really, really dislike these aggressive fags.
I thought a business had the right to refuse service to anyone.
Not since the Civil rights lunch counter confrontations.
No, unfortunately that right was made invalid by the 1964 civil rights act. You or I can't demand that a baker sell us a cake and then have the baker heavily fined or put out of business if he doesn't, but a pair of homosexual perverts can. If that's not a specially created "right" for one type of people I don't know what would be.
The issue back at the time the Civil Rights Act was passed was primarily restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that refused service to black people. Congress decided and the courts agreed that the right of the state to regulate businesses trumped the right of the business's owner/operator in that particular situation, and I agree. I think that law was justifiable in those days because racial characteristics such as skin color and/or other physical features are usually determined by race and are irreversible even if the person in question wanted to change. But OTOH homosexuality has been proved beyond doubt to be reversible by literally tens of thousands of former practicing homosexuals who have come out of that perverse lifestyle and now live well adjusted normal lives with opposite-sex pardners and children. IMHO forcing people to go against their traditional American Christian beliefs simply in order to cater to the whims of that one particular portion of the population is wrong-headed and un-American no matter what the courts of today say.
That’s right. We need a special dispensation from the government just to live.
That’s the problem with the tax-exempt status of religion. The government can always threaten to take that status away — forcing churches to allow gay marriages or hire gay job applicants.
Or the free exercise thereof. Something in the Constitution about that.
By law, businesses cannot reject people on the basis of race. But they should have that right. Black business owners, and white owners, no matter who, should be able to sell to whomever they want. It is THEIR property.
Senator Ran Paul, son of Ron, was absolutely right when he said the Civil Rights Act was a big government power grab, crushing our property rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.