Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Discuss political news items / current events.
User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Joel » Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:53 am

Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Image
Sweet Cakes by Melissa officially shutters

Sweet Cakes by Melissa has finally officially succumbed to the backlash received since refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. It closed its storefront back in 2013, but owners Aaron and Melissa Klein had been trying to reopen. Their farewell message on Facebook reads, "We have closed Sweet Cakes. We appreciate everyone's continued prayer and support." The Facebook post has been currently shared 148 times, received over 600 comments, and been liked by more than 1,300 people.

The Kleins are currently appealing a ruling ordered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that had ordered the couple to pay $135,000 in damages to the same-sex couple. The Kleins paid the amount in-full, plus interest, in December 2015, and at the time, the Kleins' lawyer Tyler Smith explained the reasoning behind the payment, saying The Kleins paid because they were being charged nine-percent interest on the court-ordered amount, which equated to around $35 a day. Since their appeal wouldn’t be heard until 2016, Smith said it made sense to pay the amount immediately.
I personally fully support their right to discriminate against any customer for whatever reason and let the market decide to use their services or not, I think it is a property rights issue, that business was their property. It would have been a nice courtesy though to have a sign on the outside of the bakery for homosexual couples to know before they stepped inside Sweet Cakes bakery that they would be denied service so they can skip the embarrassment that comes with the denial of service. I wonder if part of the reason the gay couple sued them was because they were partly embarrassed by the rejection?
Before the photoshop job :)

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

User avatar
farmerchick
captain of 100
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby farmerchick » Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:37 am

You don't have to wonder about the reason if you live in the region like I do. The alternative lifestylers are in charge here. From Dshs...L&I to all the other socially driven agencies who are trying to mold us into the utopian society where government is ultimate, parents and families obsolete and freedom to use all the drugs your body can stand unless you die is to live for.... It's totally awesome.... anything and everything except God and traditional values rule...... so cool we are in the northwest..... we are so liberated and sophisticated ect...ect.... yadayadayada.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9075
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Fiannan » Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:42 am

Are we sure the Church would oppose what happened to these bakers? Look at the Utah gay rights legislation. It threw private businesses under the bus, didn't it?
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8337
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:48 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby lundbaek » Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:45 am

I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.

I wonder if any LDS business and proerty owners adversely affected by the gay rights legislation in question appealed to the Church authorities to reconsider their support of legislation that infringed on rights of private property.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9075
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Fiannan » Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:44 pm

lundbaek wrote:I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.
True, same with banning children living with a gay parent from being baptized. Church policy on these issues makes no sense at all unless seen in the context of legal pragmatism.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato

User avatar
freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16853
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby freedomforall » Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:48 am

Fiannan wrote:
lundbaek wrote:I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.
True, same with banning children living with a gay parent from being baptized. Church policy on these issues makes no sense at all unless seen in the context of legal pragmatism.
That which you think is so bad, so wrong for the church to do was actually a part of God's mercy. How merciful for God to make it so children didn't have the weight of further sin on the backs by having them get baptized and them not being able to live up to the covenants.
You think this is so bad? Tell us, how many LDS's get baptized and then do not live up to their covenants? How many take for granted the cleansing power of baptism and show apathy by leaving the church? How many baptized members live a life of sin?
But the poor little kids that can't be baptized until they reach the age of walking life's paths on their own is just plain wrong?

Here is a hard fact:

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

I'm sure this includes postponement.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9075
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Fiannan » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:20 am

freedomforall wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
lundbaek wrote:I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.
True, same with banning children living with a gay parent from being baptized. Church policy on these issues makes no sense at all unless seen in the context of legal pragmatism.
That which you think is so bad, so wrong for the church to do was actually a part of God's mercy. How merciful for God to make it so children didn't have the weight of further sin on the backs by having them get baptized and them not being able to live up to the covenants.
You think this is so bad? Tell us, how many LDS's get baptized and then do not live up to their covenants? How many take for granted the cleansing power of baptism and show apathy by leaving the church? How many baptized members live a life of sin?
But the poor little kids that can't be baptized until they reach the age of walking life's paths on their own is just plain wrong?

Here is a hard fact:

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

I'm sure this includes postponement.
So you think the policy change was inspired? So a gay man, as long as he is celibate, can serve in any calling in the Church but the children of a bishop, if his wife leaves him, gets custody of the kids, then marries a woman are barred from baptism.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato

Vision
captain of 100
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:59 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Vision » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:22 am

Fiannan wrote:
lundbaek wrote:I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.
True, same with banning children living with a gay parent from being baptized. Church policy on these issues makes no sense at all unless seen in the context of legal pragmatism.

You can be a gay scout in an LDS scout troop but not a member if your Mother is gay.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9075
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:14 pm

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Fiannan » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:45 am

Vision wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
lundbaek wrote:I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.
True, same with banning children living with a gay parent from being baptized. Church policy on these issues makes no sense at all unless seen in the context of legal pragmatism.

You can be a gay scout in an LDS scout troop but not a member if your Mother is gay.
Now that makes perfect sense.

I just realized though, if you are a child of a mother who declares she is a lesbian, and becomes an outspoken proponent of gay rights, but decides to remain married to her husband, who is the bishop, can you get baptized?
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato

Vision
captain of 100
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:59 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Vision » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:53 am

Fiannan wrote:
Vision wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
lundbaek wrote:I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.
True, same with banning children living with a gay parent from being baptized. Church policy on these issues makes no sense at all unless seen in the context of legal pragmatism.

You can be a gay scout in an LDS scout troop but not a member if your Mother is gay.
Now that makes perfect sense.

I just realized though, if you are a child of a mother who declares she is a lesbian, and becomes an outspoken proponent of gay rights, but decides to remain married to her husband, who is the bishop, can you get baptized?
It just shows that Scouts is are more important than membership. After all the new Monson Center was just dedicated http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... tml?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:02 am
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby ajax » Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:47 pm

Joel wrote: I personally fully support their right to discriminate against any customer for whatever reason and let the market decide to use their services or not, I think it is a property rights issue, that business was their property. It would have been a nice courtesy though to have a sign on the outside of the bakery for homosexual couples to know before they stepped inside Sweet Cakes bakery that they would be denied service so they can skip the embarrassment that comes with the denial of service. I wonder if part of the reason the gay couple sued them was because they were partly embarrassed by the rejection?
You are of course correct Joel. This mindset of fleecing our neighbor is filtering into the general population. The days are soon coming to an end where we treat others and their property with respect and common decency, allowing others to do what they will with their own. Instead we demand the thoughts and behaviors of others to change.
“I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, yet deals justice to his neighbors and mercifully deals his substance to the poor, than the smooth-faced hypocrite." - Joseph Smith

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Why Are Satanic Cakes Being Baked For Civil Rights?

Postby Joel » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:48 pm

Why Are Satanic Cakes Being Baked For Civil Rights?

Cakes as civil rights? The Satanic Temple thinks so. Last Week, Lucien Greaves, the head of The Satanic Temple, offered assistance to same-sex couples who may be denied wedding cakes based upon the religious beliefs of bakers or pastry chefs. “We’ll host a party in your honor at The Satanic Temple headquarters in Salem and order a cake that praises Satan from your offending discriminatory ‘religious liberty’ enthusiast.”

The decision is based upon the upcoming legal case being heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. The owner of the Masterpiece Bakery in Colorado, Jim Phillips, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violated his religious beliefs. A Colorado court ruled in favor of the couple, agreeing that Mr. Phillips decision was a form of discrimination, not a practice of protected religious freedom. His appeal was taken by the Supreme Court for review several months ago.

One of the arguments lawyers for Phillips make is that sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Greaves is protesting this opinion by forcing any baker who denies service to bake a cake for The Satanic Temple. Religion is a federally protected class and so, therefore, under the very same justification given for denial of service to one group the bakers would be forced to give service to another group, Satanists. Lucien Graves also offered to host any wedding party at the Headquarters of The Satanic Temple in Salem, Massachusetts.

While The Satanic Temple claims to be a religious organization, it does not worship Satan as a deity. Satan is a representation of individual rationality and critical thinking, and not the Christian version of an evil, demonic figure in direct opposition to God. The Satanic Temple has been working on several public displays including an after-school program, and numerous public art displays. The group representing Jim Phillips could not be reached for comment.
I for one would like the LDS Church make a Respecting Our Differences While Defending Religious Freedom video on this scenario.
Before the photoshop job :)

gardener4life
captain of 100
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 am

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby gardener4life » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:51 pm

Fiannan wrote:
Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:20 am
freedomforall wrote:
Fiannan wrote:
lundbaek wrote:I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.
True, same with banning children living with a gay parent from being baptized. Church policy on these issues makes no sense at all unless seen in the context of legal pragmatism.
That which you think is so bad, so wrong for the church to do was actually a part of God's mercy. How merciful for God to make it so children didn't have the weight of further sin on the backs by having them get baptized and them not being able to live up to the covenants.
You think this is so bad? Tell us, how many LDS's get baptized and then do not live up to their covenants? How many take for granted the cleansing power of baptism and show apathy by leaving the church? How many baptized members live a life of sin?
But the poor little kids that can't be baptized until they reach the age of walking life's paths on their own is just plain wrong?

Here is a hard fact:

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4
4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

I'm sure this includes postponement.
So you think the policy change was inspired? So a gay man, as long as he is celibate, can serve in any calling in the Church but the children of a bishop, if his wife leaves him, gets custody of the kids, then marries a woman are barred from baptism.
The problem is for him to be saying he's a gay man, even if celibate he's teaching and telling his kids that he's living on the wrong side of the fence. He's teaching everyone in the next generation that they can cheat the system too and get away with it. You can't be part of the Lord's kingdom and part of the devil's at the same time. It just won't work. The kids would KNOW that he's gay, and be taught OK lets grow up in the church and when we're adults dad is encouraging us to supplaunt from within and try to get people to change the rules. The real issue is the children of said people are taught that they will teach the next generation that they are supposed to change God's laws. We're guests in the Lord's kingdom conditionally until we endure to the end, not 'entitled'. I felt very strongly when I heard the advice for the first time from church leaders to not baptize children of homosexual parents that the real issue is that their parents would raise them to war (verbally yes but still a spiritual war) with the saints to change the rules and lead others astray confusing their friends as they grew up with them.

I don't have any hate against those people. I'm sure some of them are nice. I also want to be friendly and civil to them. But I can't just throw away my values to placate them. And even if they aren't in the church we can cooperate with them on temporal issues well like we have in the past, like housing, not discriminating against each other, treating each other the way we each want to be treated nicely. And so on.

Before someone opens their mouth too to bash...

Today I was at school and I said a comment about sugar could give you diabetes in class. A student immediately went into outcry mode, "hey I've diabetes that's not fair to say." The kid didn't consider that I might also have the same problem in my family history of diabetes in two grandparents. So the immediate reaction from them is don't judge me, not realizing hey all these other people have these problems too, not just them. I was really saying don't fall into the danger we fell in, not lets go against diabetes. And they aren't making a fuss about it or trying to get extra privileges. They sometimes gain ground this way on the perception that no one else has problems. And diabetes in this case is just symbolic of whatever other problem people are concerned about. If we say don't fall in that trap, we're not judging we're just saying it hurt when either we fell in or a family member fell in. So we want people to steer cleer of the trap, not that we're judging anyone for falling in the trap.

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Supreme Court to weigh free speech, discrimination in wedding cake case

Postby Joel » Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:40 pm

Supreme Court to weigh free speech, discrimination in wedding cake case

The Supreme Court has a tough question ahead: Where do you draw the line between free speech and discrimination?

The case headed to the high court in the new term that begins next month centers on Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Phillips claims he shouldn't be forced to under the state’s anti-discrimination law and gained a strong ally this week when the Trump administration filed a friend of the court brief on his behalf.

Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall and DOJ attorneys claim there is no clear line between Phillips’s speech and that of his clients when he designs and creates a custom wedding cake.

“He is not merely tolerating someone else’s message on his property; he is giving effect to their message by crafting a unique product with his own two hands,” the administration said in its 41-page brief.

“In addition, because Phillips knowingly creates each custom cake for a specific couple and a specific event, observers could reasonably attribute to him a message of neutrality or endorsement."

Because of the artistry associated with custom cakes, Phillips argues that he honors God through his work by declining to use his creative talents to design and create cakes that violate his religious beliefs. These include cakes with offensive messages and cakes to celebrate Halloween.

But the American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, claim that Phillips’s reasoning for discriminating against their clients could apply to a host of other businesses.

“For example, hair salons, tailors, restaurants, architecture firms, florists, jewelers, theaters and dance schools use artistic skills when serving customers or clients,” the ACLU argued in briefs.

Louise Melling, ACLU's deputy legal director, said Phillips’s argument is nothing more than an argument that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to discriminate.

“What’s at stake is whether a business that opens its doors to the public can turn you away for who you are,” she said.

But religious rights groups say the case is about religious freedom, not discrimination.

In a similar case in Oregon, bakeshop owners Aaron and Melissa Klein were issued a $135,000 state penalty for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Stephanie Taub, counsel for First Liberty which represents the owners, said the Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether the government can force business owners to chose between their livelihoods or their beliefs.

A ruling in the Kleins' case is pending from the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Martin Lederman, an associate professor at Georgetown Law and former deputy assistant attorney general under President Obama, said the justices are likely to unanimously agree that Phillips has an artistic ability that is entitled some First Amendment protection.

But he said convincing the court that the product itself says “celebrate this couple,” and by doing so injures Phillips, will be a harder sell.

Justices are likely to raise concerns that a ruling in Phillips’s favor could lead other businesses to raise similar free speech claims.

But Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said she doesn’t see that as a real threat.

As Phillips’s attorneys noted, Mullins and Craig “easily obtained a free wedding cake with a rainbow design from another bakery.”

“So the specter of ‘this is going to be this rampant problem where people aren’t going to be able to get cakes, people aren’t going to get flowers,’ I think that’s laughable,” Severino said.

“We know that’s not actually going to be the predominant response and there’s a lot of businesses that see this as an opportunity and say, ‘Great. We’re going to hang out our rainbow flag and cater to this market' and I think there’s not a real risk there," she said.

Severino claims the case is solely about the message the cake sends not the people buying it.

“If the same couple had come in and asked for a birthday cake it would have been a very different question,” she said. “This is really about a specific message.”
Before the photoshop job :)

User avatar
Z2100
captain of 100
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:58 am

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Z2100 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:18 pm

lundbaek wrote:
Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:45 am
I suspect that the Church's action Re. the Utah gay rights legislation and legislation pertaining to illegal immigrants is what I think of as evasive action to avoid persecution.

I wonder if any LDS business and proerty owners adversely affected by the gay rights legislation in question appealed to the Church authorities to reconsider their support of legislation that infringed on rights of private property.
The church has been holding-off persecution, and has been doing pretty good so far. The church can’t always be neutral. When the church decides a side, then the wheat & the tares will have already been sifted.
We live in the 6920th year since the Fall of Man.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:23 pm

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby eddie » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:28 pm

farmerchick wrote:
Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:37 am
You don't have to wonder about the reason if you live in the region like I do. The alternative lifestylers are in charge here. From Dshs...L&I to all the other socially driven agencies who are trying to mold us into the utopian society where government is ultimate, parents and families obsolete and freedom to use all the drugs your body can stand unless you die is to live for.... It's totally awesome.... anything and everything except God and traditional values rule...... so cool we are in the northwest..... we are so liberated and sophisticated ect...ect.... yadayadayada.
What a shame, in some ways I feel responsible for not kicking up my heels with the schools and being more civic minded, are good people silent?

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Christian Baker Jack Phillips Asked to Make Birthday Cake for Satan With Upside Down Cross

Postby Joel » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:57 pm

Christian Baker Jack Phillips Asked to Make Birthday Cake for Satan With Upside Down Cross

Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips has reportedly been asked to make a birthday cake for Satan this Halloween season, as he prepares to defend his rights before the Supreme Court not to work gay weddings.

According to an email sent on Sept. 30 and obtained by The Daily Signal late last week, the cake is described as being "religious in theme."

"As you see the birthday cake in question is to celebrate the birthday of Lucifer, or as they are also known Satan who was born as Satan when he was cast from heaven by God. The cake only needs to be a simple 9x13 single layer cake, with red and black icing. As well as to contain an upside down cross, under the head of Lucifer," the email reads.

"I thought I would seek you out, to bake this cake since you appear to be a very moral person since you refused to bake a cake for same sex couples. And since religion is a protected class, I hope you will be willing to bake this cake, so my small group of religious friends can celebrate the birthday of Lucifer this coming November, just a few days after Halloween."

Phillips was found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2014 for discriminating against same-sex couple Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012, when he refused to make a cake for their wedding.

The Christian baker is going before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that his First Amendment rights are being violated, however, with oral hearings scheduled for December.

The nonprofit law group representing Phillips has said that the latest request once again is an attempt to force the baker to violate his beliefs.

"The request for Jack to make a cake celebrating Satan proves the danger of using these kinds of laws to force people in the artistic profession to create artwork that violates their beliefs," said Jeremy Tedesco, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom.

"The request from the Satanists is essentially the same as the request that Jack Phillips received from the same-sex couple to create a cake that violates his beliefs, because in both instances, the requester can say the law covers my request. For the Satanists, they're going to say it's religious discrimination for you to say no to a cake that I'm requesting because of my protected status."

Satanic-oriented groups have called for their followers to challenge Christian bakers to make cakes that go against their beliefs.

Lucien Greaves, co-founder and spokesperson for The Satanic Temple, argued in a patheos blog called "According to Matthew" at the end of September that Christian business owners are discriminating against gay people.

"For this reason, The Satanic Temple has announced a plan for those who feel alienated or oppressed by the privileged status that religion holds over sexual orientation: Request your homophobic baker make a cake for Satan," Greaves wrote.

ADF has insisted that Phillips and other business owners should not be forced to use their talents when they go against their beliefs, however.

"The government does not have the power to force creative professionals like Jack — or anyone for that matter — to celebrate events that violate their faith. That's the kind of freedom the First Amendment guarantees, and that's why we seek justice for Jack," the law group contended.
Before the photoshop job :)

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Joel » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:48 pm

Most Utahns say a baker with a religious objection shouldn’t have to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple

Tribune-Hinckley poll finds broad support for religiously based refusal.

Should a baker be legally allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple if doing so violates his or her deeply held religious beliefs?

For Utah voters, the answer to that question is yes. Overwhelmingly yes.

A new Salt Lake Tribune/Hinckley Institute of Politics poll shows that 67 percent of registered voters would support a law to let business owners deny consumer services on religious grounds, while 29 percent would not.

Image

The question itself turns on the tension between religious freedom and the advancing civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens, who have been legally allowed to marry in all 50 states since 2015.

It’s also an issue that soon could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in December will hear arguments in a dispute about a Colorado baker, who in 2012 refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips was sued for his refusal, saying he shouldn’t have to defy his religious beliefs just to run a bakery.

It’s an argument he lost, in part because Colorado has something both Utah and the federal government don’t: a public accommodation law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“Right now, it’s perfectly legal in Utah to put a sign in your restaurant window that says we refuse service to gay people,” said Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, who is currently the only openly gay member of the Legislature. “And if it happens, there’s nothing to be done.”

The poll shows broad support for laws that would protect religious freedom over public accommodation in almost every demographic queried, including age, gender, education and political affiliation or ideology.

Majority opposition was found only among Utah respondents who identified as Democrats (60 percent), those who considered themselves “liberal” (53 percent) and the “very liberal” (62 percent).

Among people of faith, only Catholics (60 percent) and those who said they affiliate with no religion (59 percent) opposed the law. Among other faiths, 70 percent of Protestants said they support the law, as did Mormons of every level of activity, at rates of 64 percent or higher.

The statewide poll, conducted Oct. 10 to 13 included 605 registered voters from Logan to St. George and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.

Weber County resident Keri Wilde, who’s lived her whole life in Utah, found the poll unsurprising, given the state’s religious and political landscape.

“But I’m disappointed,” said Wilde, 49, who works in information technology. “I don’t think there should be a law that allows a business owner to say, ‘I can refuse you because of your orientation,’ any more than because you are Mexican, or Mormon, or Democrat, or anything else.”

Wilde said her belief in equality stems from her upbringing in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it’s a value that bleeds over into the choices she makes as a consumer.

“I would want to support businesses that would support nondiscrimination,” she said.
Poll respondents are not the only ones who favor protections for religious freedoms. Utah’s political leaders and institutions have also thrown their support behind Phillips and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

The LDS Church joined other conservative faith traditions, including Orthodox Jews and evangelicals in supporting Phillips. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Utah’s predominant church said justices should protect the “religious liberties of conscientious objectors” just as it has the rights of LGBTQ persons.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is among the congressional leaders weighing in for Phillips, as has Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and his counterparts in 20 states.

Twenty-two of 24 members of Utah’s Senate Republican caucus also filed a brief supporting Phillips, touting the state’s compromise nondiscrimination bill from 2015. That successful measure, pushed by the LDS Church, balanced protections for the LGBTQ community in housing and employment, along with the rights of people of faith.

Such interests “need not be fought as a zero-sum conflict with political winners and losers,” the filing states. Another piece of the Utah’s compromise, was the passage of SB297, also in 2015, said Bill Duncan of the conservative Sutherland Institute and one of the authors of the Senate caucus brief.

Under that law, a county clerk could decline to handle a same-sex couple’s marriage license application on religious grounds, as long as the office provides an alternate staff member to do so.

“It has the virtue of providing access without going further and requiring someone to do something they are uncomfortable with,” he said.

The concern for conservatives and business owners, he added, is whether public accommodation laws may go so far that people of good faith might break the law simply by maintaining their First Amendment right not to recognize or endorse same-sex unions.

Duncan believes it’s possible to find a middle way, but said he’ll be watching the Phillips case closely to see how it will shape the legislative debate on public accommodation in Utah, which has stalled in recent years.

Dabakis contends that any business owner who is licensed by the state to do business with the public should not be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ consumers. He also sees no evidence of any crisis of religious freedoms in Utah, nor is he sure how people could prove their discrimination is truly tied to their religious beliefs.
“Do you have a jury decide?” he asked.

On Monday, Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski, who is openly gay, joined Dabakis and other Democrats expressing opposition in the Phillips case, adding her name to a brief filed by 80 other mayors and 70 counties, cities and towns.
Before the photoshop job :)

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Re: Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Gay Couple Closes

Postby Joel » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:40 pm

Joel wrote:
Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:53 am

I personally fully support their right to discriminate against any customer for whatever reason and let the market decide to use their services or not, I think it is a property rights issue, that business was their property. It would have been a nice courtesy though to have a sign on the outside of the bakery for homosexual couples to know before they stepped inside Sweet Cakes bakery that they would be denied service so they can skip the embarrassment that comes with the denial of service. I wonder if part of the reason the gay couple sued them was because they were partly embarrassed by the rejection?
Before the photoshop job :)

User avatar
Joel
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3735
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 am

Court upholds $135,000 fine for bakery owners who refused to make cake for gay couple

Postby Joel » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:33 pm

Court upholds $135,000 fine for bakery owners who refused to make cake for gay couple

SALEM, Ore. — The Court of Appeals announced its decision Thursday to uphold a $135,000 fine issued to bakery owners who refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple.

Melissa and Aaron Klein had refused to bake a cake Rachel Bowman-Cryer and her wife, Laurel back in February 2013.

They ended up closing the store several months later due to backlash, but continued the business from home with the help of online donations.

Melissa Klein ended her online business as well.

"We lost everything we loved and worked so hard to build," said Melissa Klein. "I loved my shop. It meant everything to me and losing it has been so hard for me and my family."

The state ruled Sweet Cakes had discriminated against the lesbian couple, and in July 2015, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered the Kleins pay $135,000 for emotional damages suffered.

The Kleins have already paid the $135,000 in damages, but that money was held in a government escrow pending the appeal court's decision.

The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 says businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation - just as they cannot turn away customers because of their race, sex, disability, age, or religion.
Before the photoshop job :)


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JK4Woods, mes5464 and 84 guests