Author Topic: Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated same-sex couple's civil rights when it refused to make wedding cake, state finds  (Read 4942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Quote
State labor investigators have determined a Gresham bakery violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple when it refused to make a cake for the women's wedding.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries said Friday that it has wrapped up its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Spokesman Charlie Burr said investigators found substantial evidence the bakery unlawfully discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation.

Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries.

The controversial case began a year ago. Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman of Portland say they were denied a wedding cake by the bakery's owners, who cited their own religious beliefs. Cryer and Bowman, who are domestic partners, soon lodged a complaint with the state.

The state will now oversee a conciliation process between the two parties to see if a settlement can be reached. If not, the labor bureau may pursue charges before an administrative law judge.

Paul Thompson, the Portland attorney representing Cryer and Bowman, said the women consider the investigation’s findings bittersweet. He said the two are about as pleased as they can be, given that state investigation ultimately determined they were discriminated against.

Herbert Grey, the Beaverton attorney representing bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein, said the investigation’s outcome was expected. He said the Kleins will participate in the conciliation process, but are maintaining their original stance.

The Kleins have contended they weren't discriminating against the couple, who were customers in the past. Instead, they say they were practicing their Constitutional right to religious freedom. They have said baking a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate their Christian beliefs.

A post on the business’ Facebook page about the investigation’s findings had attracted nearly 200 comments late Friday, most in support of the owners’ stance.

"They’re being punished by the state of Oregon for refusing to participate in an event that the state of Oregon does not recognize," Grey said.

In the months after the case unfolded, Sweet Cakes by Melissa closed up shop on the edge of downtown Gresham, and the Kleins moved the business to their home.


http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html#incart_m-rpt-2
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
Soon it will be criminal for a Christian or a church to refuse to give the homos whatever they want.

The left is so close to realizing their dream of criminalizing Christianity they can taste it.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton


Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,768
Soon it will be criminal for a Christian or a church to refuse to give the homos whatever they want.

The left is so close to realizing their dream of criminalizing Christianity they can taste it.
Yes they can. They are real close.


Offline Charlespg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,122
Yes they can. They are real close.
sounds like though Christians could have a real bacis for a lawsuit against the ACLU if they could prove that only Christian business are being targeted by these lawsuits.....I don't see any Muslim ,Jewish etc business being sued
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 06:01:53 PM by Charlespg »
Rather Trump Then Cackles Clinton

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Under Oregon law, accepting a license to do business in the State means you have to comply with this kind of mandate, or else.

And this is all in accordance with State law as written by liberals.


Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,836
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Under Oregon law, accepting a license to do business in the State means you have to comply with this kind of mandate, or else.

And this is all in accordance with State law as written by liberals.
Religious beliefs do not trump civil laws in America.

"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.”

Abe Lincoln

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,009
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Under Oregon law, accepting a license to do business in the State means you have to comply with this kind of mandate, or else.

And this is all in accordance with State law as written by liberals.
Yet the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution, along with Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution, prohibit the passage of laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. So any compliance requirement that inhibits any reasonable free exercise, as this clearly does, is invalid.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

“No government program ever dies of its own accord.” ―unknown

Offline Charlespg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,122
Religious beliefs do not trump civil laws in America.
so a muslin bakery should be forced to bake a wedding cake for bleep then?
Rather Trump Then Cackles Clinton

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Religious beliefs do not trump civil laws in America.

Really?  Even when those "civil" laws are made up well after your religious beliefs??  Whatever happened to Grandfathering??


Offline Charlespg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,122
Yet the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution, along with Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution, prohibit the passage of laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. So any compliance requirement that inhibits any reasonable free exercise, as this clearly does, is invalid.
there are other bakeries these two bleep could have gone too
Rather Trump Then Cackles Clinton

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,027
  • Dork
Under Oregon law, accepting a license to do business in the State means you have to comply with this kind of mandate, or else.

And this is all in accordance with State law as written by liberals.



Under the laws of every state that follows.  It's analogous to the old canard about the Devil gets to call the tune if he pays the piper.

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,633
[[ Religious beliefs do not trump civil laws in America.  ]]

Oh yes, they do!

IF.... you're a muslim!

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,027
  • Dork
Yet the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution, along with Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution, prohibit the passage of laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. So any compliance requirement that inhibits any reasonable free exercise, as this clearly does, is invalid.

That argument is extremely unlikely to fly.  Engaging in a trade or business is generally not the sort of expressive speech that the First Amendment addresses.  Furthermore, the constitutional provisions go to what the state can force someone to do; if one freely consents to restrictions on one's First Amendment rights, then one has no one other than one's self to blame.

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
I guess which know who here will demand that all churches be forced to "marry" the bleep or face being shut down.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
I would have baked them that wedding cake.

S#it happens and orders get messed up sometimes.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
oops.......... it looked just like sugar, guess the sugar and salt got mixed up somewhere.   :silly:
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Charlespg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,122
That argument is extremely unlikely to fly.  Engaging in a trade or business is generally not the sort of expressive speech that the First Amendment addresses.  Furthermore, the constitutional provisions go to what the state can force someone to do; if one freely consents to restrictions on one's First Amendment rights, then one has no one other than one's self to blame.
they did not refuse to sell them backed goods etc,just make them a wedding cake
Rather Trump Then Cackles Clinton

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
I think there is a fundamental error here, in treating it as a freedom of speech/freedom of religion case.

Both sides have equal freedom of speech and freedom of religion - so how do you balance it out? Here in the UK (and throughout Europe) we have two well tested rights in common law that the founders never bothered to list - most likely because they were so self evident they decided to save ink.

Freedom of association and freedom of movement.

In my business, I have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any or no reason. They have the complimentary right to not pay me for my services if they find my policies offensive or me personally offensive.

It's a more sensible way, and keeps clutter out of the court system.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,519
Soon it will be criminal for a Christian or a church to refuse to give the homos whatever they want.

The left is so close to realizing their dream of criminalizing Christianity they can taste it.

Let's not get carried away.

The bigger question is why is it unlawful in this case, but signs in store windows that say, "no shirt, no shoes, no service!" is okay?

A business that refuses to bake a wedding cake because of the couple's sexual orientation IS discrimination.

"Shut up and bake" is appropriate here, IMO.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

"You can lead a liberal to the Truth, but you can't make them Think" - damned if I know

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,519
so a muslin bakery should be forced to bake a wedding cake for bleep then?

My oh my!  you debate just like a liberal.

But to answer your question in a word?  Yes! 
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

"You can lead a liberal to the Truth, but you can't make them Think" - damned if I know

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,519
Really?  Even when those "civil" laws are made up well after your religious beliefs??  Whatever happened to Grandfathering??

Using that reasoning, a diner that was open for business prior to Rosetta Parks should still be allowed to refuse to serve Negroes.   :whistle:
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

"You can lead a liberal to the Truth, but you can't make them Think" - damned if I know

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,534
    • Boiling Frogs
Using that reasoning, a diner that was open for business prior to Rosetta Parks should still be allowed to refuse to serve Negroes.   :whistle:

IIRC Robert Kennedy had to use interstate commerce laws to overturn "for whites only" policies such as the ones you described (Boynton v. Virginia).

The difference (as I see it) is that we all individually have the right to discriminate on a personal level, but that does not necessarily allow for the right to discriminate in the field of commerce.

 
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
IIRC Robert Kennedy had to use interstate commerce laws to overturn "for whites only" policies such as the ones you described (Boynton v. Virginia).

The difference (as I see it) is that we all individually have the right to discriminate on a personal level, but that does not necessarily allow for the right to discriminate in the field of commerce.

Why not? I should, for example, be obliged to make and carve an altar for a Satanic cult? Someone comes in and asks me for one, I'll send them to a colleague who doesn't mind doing that. He gets the money, they get what they want, I get to keep my peace of mind.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,519
IIRC Robert Kennedy had to use interstate commerce laws to overturn "for whites only" policies such as the ones you described (Boynton v. Virginia).

The difference (as I see it) is that we all individually have the right to discriminate on a personal level, but that does not necessarily allow for the right to discriminate in the field of commerce.

Exactly, Luis.

Except "Ladies Nite" when they can get 50% off alcohol.   :laugh:

or

Senior citizen pricing providing discounts. 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2014, 10:59:24 AM by DCPatriot »
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

"You can lead a liberal to the Truth, but you can't make them Think" - damned if I know


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf