Posted on 09/02/2013 2:09:27 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
In May, TheBlaze told you about Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an Oregon-based bakery that has fallen under intense scrutiny. Throughout 2013, the Christian couple and their business have been in the midst of a media firestorm after refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
From threats to vicious phone calls and e-mails, the Klein family has been inundated with angry responses. Now, Aaron and Melissa have announced that they are shutting down their shop.
In a brief phone interview earlier this month, Melissa told TheBlaze that the couple has continued to face upheaval following their faith-based decision. Just days after we spoke, she and her husband announced that this past weekend was the family’s last at its current location.
The business will be transitioning, with the Kleins operating, instead, from their home.
“This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery,” read a post on the company’s Facebook page on Aug. 30.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
mark of the beast
“What law was broken? Has Oregon passed some law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation?”
Yes - the Oregon Equality Act. Passed in 2007, it requires (among other things) that businesses cannot refuse to serve gays any more than they could blacks.
www.pdx.edu/913967370/LGBTQ.pdf
Bad law, but it is the law.
My fear is that it will be too little and too late when that happens.
She sounds awful. Reminds me of a couple of supervisors and “higher-ups” in some of the jobs I’ve had. And I avoided them like the plague.
“I recall someone told me that she stated during lunch that she was a lesbian. I guess there was a person that was naive so she went on stating what she does in the bedroom and the toys she used. That is why I don’t eat with others I usually go to my car to eat and rest.”
Completely understandable. If we were living in a normal work world, her discussing something so graphic at work should qualify as a form of harassment.
“I know of one coworker who emailed to me and others who had faith to pray against the Homosexual agenda. Well someone reported her and I can guess who.”
That’s why I never use work email for anything non-work related. Was you co-worker who sent the email allowed to keep his or her job?
“She prides herself on her sexual orientation and has been very vocal over it.”
She’s proud of a sexual disorder? Truth is, someone like that feels guilt about it and is trying desperately to believe it’s ok by enforcing her viewpoint on others.
The person who sent the email was given a verbal warning however the whole department received an email from manager about not offending others.
Why do “proud” homosexuals insist on referring to themselves euphemistically as “gays”?
I guess it’s asking too much for FReepers to take on the question seriously of how Christians in business can set themselves up to avoid persecution by gays. Delivering poor-quality products is not an answer.
I was thinking the same thing - I sure wouldn’t want to eat a cake or have a photographer who didn’t approve of my same-sex nuptials. This is clearly an intentional act of harassment designed to show all the Christians how the game is now played by Ellen’s crew. These are cowardly bullies who got the laws changed to include a small group of people who really do need professional mental health counseling. Bet in Oregon that’s against the law, too.
The only way to do it is not to be a public accomodation, which means that you can't set up a storefront or advertise your services to the public at large. Basically, you have to be an underground business which isn't going to be enough these days to stay afloat.
Delivering poor-quality products is not an answer.
It is an answer. It may not be the best one, but it is one way of doing things. The problem is the way the laws are set up. If you engage the general public, you are compelled to provide service to all comers in accordance with the law. Failure to do so results in ... well, we know the results.
Its a problem that has no good solution other than going underground, but if one does that, then the business is not likely to make enough money to survive.
I'm open to suggestions.
$30,000 + legal expenses? That’s all? Not much for a case of nationwide importance. If the couple were homosexual, some decadent billionaire or slutty actor would pay the bill.
“I’m open to suggestions.”
There’s only one - change the law.
In this case, repeal the Oregon Equality Act or modify it to allow public accommodations the right of refusal.
Deliberately sabotaging the product or service sounds nice on a message board, but is very bad business if not outright illegal on its own.
Our only hope is to provide legal cover, but our strategy has been so bad to date that I’m afraid it’s not much hope at all.
I hope some lawyers publish opinions or law journal articles about this, assuming you could find a lawyer concerned about freedom of conscience. I wish some pro bono lawyer would appeal this case for the baker and the photographer and eHarmony and all the businesses persecuted this way.
Just one more bad thing that starts on one of the coasts, I guess.
Since Oregon is a one-party blue State at the moment that is not likely a viable option.
The current Labor Commissioner is a real fruitcake who makes Ted Kennedy look like a Bircher in comparison. Salem recently went after a bar in Portland whose business dropped when a bunch of cross-dressers decided to make it their new home and were ejected because of the drop in receipts. $400k fine.
Not offhand, but the definition of "public accomodation" has expanded significantly. Originally, it was meant to simply mean that you couldn't throw people out of restaurants and hotels and bars because they were black. Now it means just about anything the politicians want it to mean.
The general rule they taught me in business school was that if your door is open to the public you have to take whatever customer walks in -- if you didn't want to get in trouble.
The OR case is a bit odd. The bakery was asked to make a cake for a ceremony that is illegal in OR and then got in trouble for it.
It may be possible to refuse business because your perception is that you would be an accessory to an illegal act. That may or may not work given who is in office. Certainly claiming a religious exception is not working.
We live in perilous times.
“The OR case is a bit odd. The bakery was asked to make a cake for a ceremony that is illegal in OR and then got in trouble for it.”
I don’t think gay weddings are *illegal* to hold in Oregon. The ceremonies just don’t have any legal effect.
But my understanding is about the same as yours - once you agree to deal with the public, you lose certain rights to choose which members of the public.
It sounds like the bipolar lesbian person would probably be allowed to offend any co-worker all she wanted and without any disciplinary action.
At a job I used to have, a male homosexual co-worker who was a huge drama queen emailed the whole office to vote against marriage being defined as 1 male to 1 female saying it was “un Christian” to do so. (”UnChristian to agree with what Christ taught in Matthew 19:4-6? :? Again, I’m expecting some logic and rationality to be used here). He was never fired and I’m sure he never got the slightest reprimand for doing so. Libs will forever get a pass for whatever unprofessionalism they exhibit.
True. They cannot be recorded or have any legal effect. I am corrected.
But my understanding is about the same as yours - once you agree to deal with the public, you lose certain rights to choose which members of the public.
Yes. I've been looking into how to decline specific jobs. Most of the cases where Governments go after people -- are when people state the reason why they decline the job and provide the evidence needed themselves.
I have not seen a case yet for a bakery or photographer where saying "We are booked that weekend" or "We are backordered for three months" or even "We have to decline as we are swamped" gets someone in trouble. There may well be one (as in the case of a hotel/motel) but I just haven't seen it yet.
This is lawlessness -- it's all about "me, me, me" and what "I" (various petty officials, including Holder) think the law should be, not what it actually says, as established by due process. Selective enforcement.
I remember when the terms "exclusive" or "for the discriminating client" were a good thing in high-level retail business. Now, you can be prosecuted.
Thanks for a good discussion.
TMI? As long as you're not a guy, not a problem!
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.