Opinion: A 9-year wait for justice for our beliefs

For nine years, the state of Oregon pursued our family and our little bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, because we could not in good conscience create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. Over the years, the state deprived us of a fair hearing, erroneously issued an injunction limiting what we could say, improperly ordered us to pay $135,000, and violated our rights to freely exercise our beliefs.

In early 2013, Aaron welcomed two potential customers, a woman and her mother, into our bakery as we welcome everyone. When he found out they were looking for someone to create a custom cake for the daughter’s upcoming same-sex wedding, he politely declined based upon our Christian belief in marriage as between one man and one woman. We believe the First Amendment protects everyone from being compelled to use their art to send a message with which they disagree.

We never dreamed that the state would go after us for trying to run our small business in accordance with our faith. And we never dreamed the process would be so stacked against us.

Now, represented by Boyden Gray and Associates and First Liberty Institute, we are appealing to the Oregon Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will be taking a case involving a wedding website designer. That case will likely decide whether, under the First Amendment, a state can compel an artist to speak or stay silent.

Nine years ago, we never imagined that the state of Oregon would go after our family because of our religious beliefs. But we remain committed to protecting our rights, and those of all artists, to be free from government-compelled speech.

One Canadian columnist gives his perspective: “For more than twenty years…I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant’s right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover [in addition to heavy fines], ‘the process is the punishment’ in these star chambers—for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.”
(“Homosexuality and the Reign of Terror,” T.A. McMahon, The Berean Call, Oct 1, 2015, https://www.thebereancall.org/content/homosexuality-and-reign-terror?sapurl=Lys5MjZkL2xiL2xpLyt3dm44dWs4P2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQnd2bjh1azg=)

"One Canadian columnist gives his perspective: “For more than twenty years…I have been writing against the human rights commissions, which have quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country. They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant’s right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover [in addition to heavy fines], ‘the process is the punishment’ in these star chambers—for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing.” (“Homosexuality and the Reign of Terror,” T.A. McMahon, The Berean Call, Oct 1, 2015"

Describes Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner case well. Jack Philips did not deny two sodomites service, as they could purchase anything off the shelf, but he denied them a service of creating a custom work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an immoral (God's law) and illegal (state law at the time) sexual union. But this was judged to be unlawful discrimination since the denial was linked to what the couple was, a protected class. Meaning homosexuals are treated as a race, and thus to deny them a service due to that being related to race then it is treated like refusing to provide a a custom work for the expressed purpose of celebrating it. But since SCOTUS has effectively deemed that homosexuals are as race, and that same-sex marriage is sanctified, then having made the bed they have a real problem ruling in favor of any who will not make the bed .

Had he denied a heterosexual couple the service of creating a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating divorce btwn the heterosex couple then he would not have been charged, though most likely the Civil Rights commission would have persecuted him for refusing to do so for a homosexual couple.

But not a Muslim baker who refused to make a special work to celebrate the anniversary of the state of Israel. However, courts do not forbid private social media entities and host web hosts from refusing to provide service to anyone based upon ideological content, and otherwise it would require entities like FR to accommodate liberals. However, while social media can effectively discriminate against religion by banning expression of such (separation of church from cyberspace) as I have, yet in the future expression of disapproval of sodomy coudl result in a hate crime charge. And even treating the likes of Facebook as public utilities will not stop them from discrimination against conservatives, since that is likely what the Left intends on doing. No phone or gas to those who will not salute the flag of Sodom.

"An intrinsic issue is property rights. If one owns a business, they have every right to do with it as the please. If someone is turned down, they can go somewhere else."

But you do know what while social media can discriminate according to ideological content, yet they cannot (manifestly) do so on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, nationality. And in the recent eyes of the "now woke" law then since homosexuality is treated as race color, ethnicity etc., then a refusal to be complicit in celebrating an immoral and illegal (at the time in CO) wedding for a couple who are part of a protected racial class, then in the eyes of the law this would be akin to the refusal to create a wedding cake for a black wedding due to racist views. The homosexuals are treated as a racial, ethnic class and their identity of the couple is necessarily intrinsically linked to the reason for the refusal.

Such is the result of the tragedy of SCOTUS confusing a immoral behavior with a civil right. One should be able to refuse to create a work or foster an event that they consider immoral as long the customer or the work or service is not judged as being such due amoral aspects as race, color, ethnicity, etc. In other works you cannot refuse provide for an interracial event. But when the express purpose of the work or service is too celebrate or foster something immoral, then the refusal by the provider should not be treated as wrong based upon the status of the customer which status is intrinsically related to a behavior. They might as well as provide endocannibals with special protected status since this is related to their proclivity to engage in consensual consumption of the flesh of the dead. And which a business must therefore help celebrate.

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.