Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Declining Form of Participation in ‘Gay Wedding’ Going to Court

Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes by Melissa

PORTLAND, Ore. — A Christian couple that was ordered to pay $135 in “emotional damages” to two lesbian women for declining to make a cake for their same-sex ceremony, which the couple believed to be a form of participation, will now have their day in court as the case will be argued this year before the Oregon Court of Appeals.

As previously reported, last February, a judge with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Instrustries (BOLI) declared the Kleins guilty of discrimination for declining to make a cake for the 2014 event. The Kleins had served the women, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, in other ways, and the women returned because the couple had treated them kindly.

“I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” Aaron Klein told reporters. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

But because the Kleins said that they didn’t feel comfortable with fulfilling that particular order because of the event that it involved, the women filed a discrimination complaint against the bakers.

“We were being asked to participate in something that we could not participate in,” Klein’s wife, Melissa, stated, outlining that the wedding cake is one of the most personal and intricate parts of the occasion.

Some Christians believe that being a part of a same-sex event violates the biblical command in 1 Timothy 5:22 not to be “partakers in other men’s sins,” as well as the command in Ephesians 5:7, “Be not ye therefore partakers with them.”

After the Kleins were declared guilty of discrimination, Cryer and Bowman submitted individual lists of just under 100 aspects of suffering in order to receive damages. They included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “excessive sleep,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “mental rape,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But the Kleins told the court that they too had suffered because of the attacks that they received over their desire to live out their Christian faith in the workplace. They stated that they endured “mafia tactics” as their car was vandalized and broken into on two occasions, their vendors were harassed by homosexual advocates resulting in some businesses breaking ties with them, and they received threatening emails wishing rape, death and Hell upon the family.

As a result, the Kleins had to close their business and move it into their private home, and eventually close it altogether.

“We still get threats. We just got a threat last week,” Melissa Klein told The Blaze this week. “We still get emails every once in a while out of the blue that are just saying horrible things to us.”

“Somebody [recently] made a threat of basically, ‘Wait until 8:15. You’ll see what happens,'” she explained. “It leaves a little feeling of, ‘What does that mean?’”

In April, Alan McCullough, an administrative judge with the bureau, recommended a payment of $135,000, with one of the women receiving $75,000 and the other $60,000. Prosecutors had sought damages of $75,000 each.

In June, BOLI officially accepted McCollough’s recommendation and ordered the Kleins to pay the women $135,000 in light of the damages Cryer and Bowman listed.

The Kleins then asked for a stay of the order, but were denied. As the couple initially refused to pay the damages, believing that they had done no wrong, officials moved to docket the judgment and seek permission to place a property lien against the Kleins or collect the money in other ways.

In December, the state emptied all of the Klein’s personal banking accounts—including money set aside to pay their tithe. The Kleins told reporters following the incident that they had three personal bank accounts: one checking, one savings, and one account marked “God’s money” for their tithe at church. The three accounts contained just under $7,000 total.

Faced with a nine percent interest penalty for not paying the $135,000, the Kleins then opted to submit a check for the amount in full, using money donated by supporters that was not in their personal bank account. They dropped off a check for $136,927.07 after realizing that the government had seized their personal accounts. The funds are currently in an escrow account pending the final outcome of the case.

Now, the Kleins are scheduled to have their day in court before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Legal briefs are expected to be filed throughout the year, and oral argument will take place in late 2016.

“The government should never force people to violate their conscience or celebrate causes they don’t believe in,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, which will be representing the couple in court.

The Kleins also explained on Fox’s “The Kelly File” this week that Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s assertion that Christian bakeries such as theirs are refusing to make cupcakes for homosexuals are false.

“That’s definitely not the way it is,” Melissa Klein stated. “We don’t have a litmus test for customers that come in.”

“We never rejected a customer. We said no thank you to an event,” added Aaron Klein. “It’s a much different scenario than what he thinks it is.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Pollos Hermanos

    Why not mention the fact that the Kleins made over $500,000 grifting off of this case for publicity?

    • violetteal

      So? Obviously there are sane people out there who think they were wrongfully persecuted for their beliefs. The Kleins are religious and political vermin in the eyes of the state and the LGBT fascists. If I had a million dollars, a good chunk of it would be going to their legal fund.

      • Pollos Hermanos

        Grifters gotta grift and the rubes gotta write checks I guess.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    I’ve never heard of a wedding cake being part of a marriage ceremony. A wedding reception maybe, but not a marriage ceremony.

  • Guest

    A business making offers to the public can’t refuse them with the excuse of religious discrimination. The customers have a right to have same sex weddings just as much as any employee or owner of Mellissa’s Sweet Cakes have a right to not have one. There is no right to make a customer pass a religious test to be able to actually buy the offered product.

    Of course the irony is the Halloween-themed wedding cakes on the business’s web page. They will provide cakes decorated with pagan and demonic imagery? Seems that ‘belief’ is just an excuse for sexual orientation discrimination after all.

    • Michael C

      As the Willamette Week discovered, Sweet Cakes is also willing to make cakes for people celebrating out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce, pagan holidays, and stem cell research.

      • gogo0

        look at the picture in the article, the christian baker with uncompromising morals and biblical values also has a nose piercing.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Lesbians are “emotionally damaged” by the Sin they embrace. America continues its spiral into Darkness. The False Light is shining and those who have rejected the Truth run to it.

    Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

  • Michael C

    “The government should never force people to violate their conscience or celebrate causes they don’t believe in,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute

    Ms. Shackelford, if a baker doesn’t “believe in” a marriage between a Christian and a Jewish person, can they refuse to sell them a cake with white frosting (no different that the cakes with white frosting that they regularly sell to other customers)?

    If a baker doesn’t “believe in” a marriage between a European and a Korean person, can they refuse to sell them a cake with white frosting (no different that the cakes with white frosting that they regularly sell to other customers)?

    In order to fulfill Ms. Shackelford’s desires about not forcing people public accommodations to serve all customers equally, we would have to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    • violetteal

      It’s their belief. It’s not discriminating against a race or gender. It refusal to serve and participate in a behavior.

      • acontraryview

        “It’s not discriminating against a race or gender.”

        We’ll bake a cake for a couple of opposite gender. We won’t bake a cake for a couple of the same gender. Please explain how that is NOT discriminating based upon gender.

        “It refusal to serve and participate in a behavior.”

        What behavior are they participating in? Are the bakers required to be romantically, sexually, and emotionally attracted to people of the same gender?

        • violetteal

          Yes, behavior. Two people want an obviously Christian business owner to make a cake to celebrate an event that the business is against. The lesbian couple are predators. They are no better than a person who goes into a story and looks for something to slip on so they can sue. I couldn’t care less about their marriage, I take issue with that they lied and sought to rob someone with their new found class of victimhood.

          • acontraryview

            “The lesbian couple are predators. ”

            How so? How does holding a business accountable to the law make the person holding them accountable a “predator”?

            “I take issue with that they lied and sought to rob someone with their new found class of victimhood.”

            What did they lie about? Who did they rob?

          • Guest

            And if you knew a thing about the case you’d know the plantiff had bought a wedding cake for their remarrying divorced mother a few years earlier and returned to buy one for their own wedding.

            So exactly where in your faith does falsely accusing someone fit?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        It is definitely discrimination. Whether that discrimination is based on religious belief or not is irrelevant.

        • violetteal

          We have a right to discriminate. It’s a human right. The constitution guarantees that we have a right to discriminate. Freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly are specifically mentioned. The founding fathers knew this would happen. I think that’s why we have a second amendment.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            There is no provision in the Constitution granting “the right to discriminate.”

  • Quantz

    Well, will you look at that? Melissa Klein has a piercing in her nose. What does the Bible say about that?

    Leviticus 19:28 says, “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.”

    Then there’s Deuteronomy 14:1 (AMP): “You are the sons of the LORD your God:
    you shall not cut yourselves, or make any baldness on your foreheads
    for the dead.”

    (A doubly whammy here: When it speaks here about doing this in relation to the dead; this was a witchcraft rite done to mourn or remember their dead, so cutting,
    piercing and tattooing have its origin in witchcraft practices.)

    • Rebecca Spellmeyer

      That rule was made to distinguish Gods people from others. When Jesus died those rules no longer applied. Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament. There is no place where Jesus ever says a marriage is between two people of the same sex. He actually specifies male and female when speaking about marriage.

      • acontraryview

        “There is no place where Jesus ever says a marriage is between two people of the same sex. ”

        There’s no place where Jesus is quoted as saying it isn’t. He is, however, quoted as saying that homosexuals are born as homosexuals.

        • Rebecca Spellmeyer

          So if your rules at work say the dress code is black bottoms and black top is it okay to wear a blue top and brown bottoms because there isn’t anywhere in the dress code that says it isn’t allowed?

          • acontraryview

            if the rules at work say ONLY black bottoms and black tops, then no, it wouldn’t. If, however, it said something like “The one who can accept this should accept it.” then yes, it would be fine to wear a blue top and brown bottoms.

      • Giraffe-Junk

        “When Jesus died those rules no longer applied.” Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

  • Becky

    Just who are the participants of a wedding? Everyone that participated, of course. There are many participants, such as the minister, planners, florists, photographers, caterers, etc. All of these professionals fully participate in the production of a wedding. Incidentally, the cake, aside from the bride and groom, is the centerpiece of a wedding.

    Faith is within the heart and it’s exercised in every aspect of a Christian’s life, including business. It’s not something that is taken off and left at home…like a pair of slippers. Our constitutional right guarantees us as citizens that we can freely practice and uphold our faith/belief without discrimination. That right doesn’t become null and void when we become business owners. It is full-on discrimination…illegal…when a Christian-business owner who chooses not to participate in a homosexual wedding has their religious freedom stripped away by forcing them to participate, or else pay steep fines and/or serve jail time, whilst having their business destroyed. That is not constitutional! It is not equality!

    Btw, the list of “suffering” that the homosexuals submitted are beyond absurd. How do we know that they didn’t plan the attack on the bakers? After all, they did know they were a Christian family. It should be investigated. Christians are a target for homosexual activist groups and they want to silence Christians…take notice on how they don’t go after Muslim businesses. They won’t be happy until everyone is participating in their lewdness, in some form or another.

    • Michael C

      Your position seems to be in opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      Do you believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed?

      • Reason2012

        Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

        I doubt it.

        Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving professing homosexuals should not be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-Christian ACT of a same-gender or polygamous wedding, or other anti-Christian ACTS.

        Civil Rights Act intact.

        PS Race is genetic – homosexuality is not. So comparing this to the noble struggle of people of race is an insult to them.

        • Michael C

          Please allow me to adjust your hyperbolic, straw man hypotheticals to align them with the actual subject as it relates to existing non-discrimination legislation and existing protected characteristics.

          Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake (no different than what he regularly makes for other customers) for a customer who is throwing a “There’s nothing wrong with being white” gathering?

          Should a gay baker who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake (no different than what she regularly makes for other customers) for a customer attending a “Jesus is God” festival?

          Likewise, should a Jewish baker who has no problem serving professing Christians be forced to bake a cake (no different than what they regularly offer to other customers) for the wedding between a Jewish bride and a Christian groom?

          Guess what, all of these bakers are prohibited by law from refusing service to these customers under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          • Reason2012

            Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake (no different than what he regularly makes for other customers) for a customer who is throwing a “There’s nothing wrong with being white” gathering?

            Notice how you dishonestly changed the scenario. Anti-black acts, anti-homosexual acts, anti-Christian acts – can’t force said person to support it.

            Glad you unwittingly admit you agree that a white person demanding a black baker support such an anti-black act would be bigotry and not a violation of the law for the black man to refuse to support that ACT.

            Should a gay baker who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake (no different than what she regularly makes for other customers) for a customer attending a “Jesus is God” festival?

            Again you change the topic from an anti-homosexual act, to a neutral act. So you AGAIN show that you agree if it was an anti-homosexual ACT the homosexual could deny baking the cake to support that ACT.

            But if a muslim baker was asked to bake a “Jesus is God” festival cake, he or she could likewise refuse.

            Guess what, all of these bakers are prohibited by law from refusing service to these customers under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            Of course in your changed scenarios they’re prohibited from refusing the request – you changed the request so it’s no longer a bigoted request.

            I asked instead do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

            I asked instead should a professing homosexual who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-homosexual ACT of “homosexuality is a sin” gathering?

            By avoiding this you unwittingly admit you realize those requests towards the baker are bigoted and can hence be denied.

            This is the simple argument in court that can undermine the bigotry of those who are going after Christian bakers trying to legally force them to support anti-Christian ACTS.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Michael C

            Notice how you dishonestly changed the scenario from an anti-black acts they’re being asked to support to instead a “there’s nothing wrong with being white” act.

            I quite honestly changed the scenario. I said that’s what I was doing in the very first sentence of my reply.

            Getting married is not an anti-Christian act. It is simply what people do.

            Again you change the topic from an anti-homosexual act, to a neutral act that has nothing to do with homosexuality.

            Getting married is a neutral act. It’s something that most everyone does.

            But I should add, if a [M]uslim baker was asked to bake a “Jesus is God” festival cake, he or she could likewise refuse.

            …well, you’re kinda getting what I was saying. If a Muslim baker was asked to sell a cake (no different than what they regularly sell to other customers) to a person who was throwing a “Jesus is God” festival, that baker would be required to sell them the cake. Now, if the customer asked the Muslim baker to print the words “Jesus is the one true God” in frosting, I believe that the baker would not be required to fulfill this request.

            If a customer asked for a wedding cake with a bride-and-bride cake topper, and the baker does not offer bride-and-bride cake toppers, they’re in no way in violation of local non-discrimination legislation.

            If a customer asks for the words “God loves gay people’s weddings” on top of a cake, the baker is under no obligation to fulfill this request.

          • Reason2012

            I quite honestly changed the scenario. I said that’s what I was doing in the very first sentence of my reply.

            No, you said you were going to adjust it but you completely changed it.

          • violetteal

            The bakers were against a behavior, not a race or gender. BEHAVIOR. You know what that is right? Marriage is a some you do and if others disagree with it, it’s their right not to sanction it.

          • acontraryview

            “The bakers were against a behavior”

            They are free to be against whatever behaviors they care to. Baking a cake for a same-gender wedding reception does not equate to sanctioning homosexual behavior. Just as making a wedding cake for a couple who have been previously divorced reasons other than adultery sanctions adultery or a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother sanctions pre-marital sexual relations.

          • violetteal

            They believe that it is and the constitution guarantees a persons right to believe and practice their religion.

          • acontraryview

            They are free to believe whatever they care to. Their belief, however, does not change the law nor their requirement to abide by it.

            “and practice their religion.”

            There are restrictions on the practice of religion. This is one of them.

          • ppp777

            The truth is people like you are trying to rid Christianity out of existence — huh , forget it .

          • acontraryview

            What have I said that would lead you to conclude, falsely, that I am “trying to rid Christianity out of existence”?

          • violetteal

            Aren’t you? If a Christian cannot practice their beliefs in the world, then it makes them not Christian.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite anything that I have said that would lead to the conclusion that I am “trying to rid Christianity out of existence”. Got it. Thanks.

            “Aren’t you?”

            No, I am not.

            “If a Christian cannot practice their beliefs in the world, then it makes them not Christian.”

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • violetteal

            Wrong. A person is not a slave. The government has no right to compel anyone to work against their will.

          • acontraryview

            Agreed. Nor are they. They are free to open a business or not open a business. If they do open a business they are free to choose what products they offer and which they don’t. The government is not compelling anyone to work against their will.

          • violetteal

            It’s their prerogative. It’s not a race or gender.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It doesn’t matter that sexuality isn’t race or gender. Other things that aren’t race or gender are in anti-discrimination laws. As in age, veteran status, pregnancy, and even religion. And sexuality, at least in some states, like Oregon. So, no, it wasn’t their prerogative, it was against the law.

          • acontraryview

            “It’s not a race or gender.”

            How is that relevant?

          • Guest

            What behavior was going to happen at their wedding that hadn’t happened at other weddings they did sell cakes for?

          • violetteal

            They don’t believe in same sex marriage. selling a cake for a celebration of two women getting married is condoning that act. I would be the equivalent of renting a motel room to a pedophile so she could have sex with children. If the law says it’s ok, do you rent the room? Or do you risk a fine?

          • Guest

            Then they never have to enter into a same-sex marriage. But every single customer has a constitutional right to not share their beliefs about marriage. And no its condoning nothing other than their right to NOT share her religious beliefs.

            You can’t make a customer responding to a public offer measure up to a religious yardstick they don’t share , they have a right to their own.

            And since pedophiles aren’t a protected class you can refuse to rent the room to them if you want.

          • violetteal

            That’s not the point. Homosexuals aren’t a protected class in the US constitution either. Religious freedom IS protected in the constitution along with free speech, the right to protect ones self and a list of other rights.

          • Guest

            You don’t understand about rights, they are all equal – constitution written, statute-based, federal or state, none are above or below the other – you with have them or you don’t.

            and we all have religious freedom and the belief that people of the same-sex can marry is just as much a right as believing they can’t.

            again don’t make an offer to the public you won’t sell to people of all beliefs.

          • violetteal

            That is a false argument. People do business base on their beliefs all of the time. You are a misinformed. No law or state can abridge any right in the constitution. If the feds or a state decide to pass a law doing away with free speech, do you think it’s the fault of those who would be arrested for speaking their mind?

          • Guest

            Another strawman. No one is saying that someone doesn’t have free exercise of religion, they just can’t break the law while doing it. And when you make invitations of sale to the public every responding customer’s freedom of religion is just as important. Business owner’s beliefs say they can’t marry someone of the same sex has nothing to do with the customer’s who say they can.

            Don’t invite people to come do business if you can’t do it while respecting their civil rights.

          • violetteal

            You need to study civics.

          • Guest

            I have, that’s why it’s obvious you haven’t.

          • Rebecca Spellmeyer

            Please allow me to adjust your thinking. Is making a cake for a birthday different than a cake made for a wedding? They are both cakes but are for 2 very different purposes. If a person is a professional speaker would a speech to high school students be different than a speech to corporate executives? They are both speeches but the message is different.

            In this country we are given the right under the first amendment to practice our religion without government interference. For the government to force a Christian to provide something for an event which they see as sin and therefore have no desire to provide or be punished is unconstitutional.

          • Michael C

            They are both cakes but are for 2 very different purposes.

            Well, no. Both a birthday cake and a wedding cake have the exact same purpose. Think about it.

            If you disagree and you feel that a tiered cake with white frosting actually has a religious purpose, that product should not be offered by a public accommodation to the general public. If a person wishes to go into the business of baking religious sacrament cakes, there are other business models (like forming a religious corporation) that better fit their intentions.

          • Reason2012

            False. A wedding cake is supporting a ‘wedding’ and a birthday cake is supporting a ‘birthday’.
            And there are certain ‘weddings’ like polygamy, incest or same gender that are anti-Christian and a Christian can’t be forced to support anti-Christian acts any more than a black baker can be forced to support an anti-black ACTS, or a homosexual can’t be forced to support anti-homosexual ACTS.

          • Michael C

            Cakes do not support events. That doesn’t make sense.

            Polygamy and incest are not protected characteristics anywhere in the United States.

          • Reason2012

            If you’re proving cake for an event, that’s supporting the event.

            Polygamy and incest are not protected characteristics anywhere in the United States.

            Neither was same-gender marriage. What’s your point? Well at least we know it’s no longer true if you try to claim you’re for marriage equality for all.

          • Michael C

            If you’re selling a product to a customer, you’re selling a product to a customer.

            I believe that there are sensible limits on the civil recognition of marriage. I don’t believe that gender is one of those limits.

          • Reason2012

            They can’t force a black business owner to use his products to support anti-black ACTS, nor can they force a homosexual business owner to use his products to support anti-homosexual acts, and so on.

            Marriage was defined by God and is a religious institution – to ask Christians to support such an anti-Christian ACT like a incestial marrriage, or same-gender marriage, or polygamous marriage is a bigoted, anti-Christian request that they cannot be forced to do.

          • acontraryview

            They aren’t forced. The decision to open a business is a choice. The decision as to what products and services the business offers is a choice. There is no forcing.

          • Reason2012

            They aren’t forced. The decision to open a business is a choice.

            So your response to racism against black people would likewise be “A black man is NOT forced to perform the racist act of supporting an anti-black gathering – his decision to open a business is a choice”. And therein is your logic shown to be bigoted.

          • acontraryview

            “So your response to racism against black people would likewise be “A black man is NOT forced to perform the racist act of supporting an anti-black gathering – his decision to open a business is a choice”.”

            A black baker would not be required to provide such an item. Your analogy is false.

          • acontraryview

            Your analogies are flawed. You are grasping at straws.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Marriage was defined by God and is a religious institution”

            No, it’s not a religious institution. Or at least, it doesn’t have to be if one doesn’t want it to be. You can get married without any involvement from any religious body whatsoever.

          • acontraryview

            “If you’re proving cake for an event, that’s supporting the event.”

            How so?

            If a Christian baker makes a wedding cake for a couple who have been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery, is the baker supporting adultery?

            If a Christian baker makes a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother, is the baker supporting sexual relations outside of marriage?

            If a Christian baker makes a wedding cake for a wedding ceremony that involves a religion other than Christianity, is the baker supporting worshipping a god other than the Christian god?

          • Reason2012

            Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

            Should a professing homosexual who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-homosexual ACT of “homosexuality is a sin” gathering?

          • acontraryview

            No, I don’t. Nor are they. Personal viewpoints are not a covered category. Did you have a point?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Neither was same-gender marriage.”

            But it IS now.

          • acontraryview

            “Neither was same-gender marriage”

            Same-gender marriage is not a protected category.

          • Reason2012

            Same-gender marriage is not a protected category.

            Which is one more reason why no one can be forced to support it.

          • acontraryview

            No one is required to support it. People are free to support or not support whatever they care to. Providing a product does not indicate support for a particular action.

          • Reason2012

            No one is required to support it. People are free to support or not support whatever they care to.

            Thank you for unwittingly admitting Christians are not forced to support a same-gender marriage with their business.

            Providing a product does not indicate support for a particular action.

            Meanwhile businesses terminate their contracts with people they no longer agree with on their viewpoints as it would imply they support said viewpoints.

          • acontraryview

            “Thank you for unwittingly admitting Christians are not forced to support a same-gender marriage with their business.”

            I never said they were. Baking a cake for a wedding reception is not an indication of “support”.

            I’ll ask yet again:

            If a Christian baker makes a wedding cake for a couple who have been previously divorced for reasons other than adultery, is the baker supporting adultery?

            If a Christian baker makes a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother, is the baker supporting sexual relations outside of marriage?

            If a Christian baker makes a wedding cake for a wedding ceremony that involves a religion other than Christianity, is the baker supporting worshipping a god other than the Christian god?

            “Meanwhile businesses terminate their contracts with people they no longer agree with on their viewpoints as it would imply they support said viewpoints.”

            Yes, they do. How is that relevant?

          • Guest

            You are confusing this wedding with the civil contract of marriage. People can have a wedding without a legal marriage contract and always have.

            This was a wedding cake, not a marriage cake. At no time did anyone involved try the failing excuse it wasn’t a ‘legal wedding’ since ther is no legal criteria for what a wedding is.

          • Sb0Tz4ZxB0

            Not yet anyway.

          • ppp777

            Not yet

          • Paige Turner

            Baking a cake is providing a service and not participation just like your mechanic who services your car has no business in determining what you do with that car.

          • Reason2012

            Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering? That’s more than just simply “baking a cake” – you’re being forced to support a bigoted act in such a case.

            Should a professing homosexual who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-homosexual ACT of “homosexuality is a sin” gathering? That’s more than just simply “baking a cake” – you’re being forced to support a bigoted act in such a case.

            Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving professing homosexuals should not be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-Christian ACT of a same-gender or polygamous wedding, or other anti-Christian ACTS. The request is also bigotry from the ones making the request.

          • Paige Turner

            You’re missing the point.

            The merchant is being asked to provide a good or a service to a customer. There is no participation in the event.

            For example: Your supermarket isn’t participating in your party at home when you buy food for that party from them even if that party is for Christmas and they are Jews who don’t celebrate Christmas and don’t approve.

            If you provide wedding cakes, you must provide them to everyone and your views or beliefs cannot defend your decision to deny service. Thats the law. If you don’t approve of gay marriage then don’t provide wedding cakes to anyone otherwise you are discriminating. Its a wedding cake not a gay wedding cake.

            The cake is irrelevant to its purpose. The merchant’s opinion of the purpose is irrelevant and especially so when the celebration is a legal marriage.

            Provide wedding cakes to everyone or no one. You cant pick and choose.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Anti- Christian act? Gay people don’t get together and get married for the purpose of tearing down Christianity. If Christians think that they need to get over themselves.

          • ppp777

            People like you are truly heading for hell

          • DrewTwoFish

            Because….?

          • DrewTwoFish

            People like you fail to recognize that there is great big world out there full of people who though they don’t subscribe to your world view are nonetheless basically decent people who are looking for connection, community, security and purpose….just like you are.

          • Paige Turner

            Yes you’re right, the struggle for Gay rights is a human rights issue similar to that of Black people and as you have shown, black people cannot change their skin and Gay people cannot change their sexuality.

            I think thats fair too.

            Cake providers need to provide cakes to everyone. If they are a wedding cake provider then they have to provide wedding cakes to everyone or no one. Its really that simple.

          • ppp777

            “Homosexuals can’t change their sexuality ” , yes in the same way child abusers e t c can’t change theirs .

          • Paige Turner

            That’s a very unhinged argument given that the two items do not have anything to do with each other except perhaps in your sick and twisted mind.

            Very troubling symptoms coming from you on this.

          • Josey

            Not the same thing, for the mechanic isn’t advertising anything but working on your car. When two same sex couple comes in asking for a wedding cake that has two same sex couples or a same sex message in support of said wedding these bakers conscience and faith would not allow them to make the cake, these two didn’t just go in there and pick out a wedding cake with congrats on it, they asked for a certain message which went against these bakers faith and conscience, it would be no different if a pornographer went in asking this couple to bake a cake celebrating their porn lifestyle.

          • Michael C

            When two same sex couple comes in asking for a wedding cake that has two same sex couples or a same sex message in support of said wedding these bakers conscience and faith would not allow them to make the cake

            Do you think that the couple were asking for a cake with a bride-and-bride cake-topper? Does anyone anywhere still put figurines on top of wedding cakes? I’ve never seen anyone do that and I’ve been to a lot of weddings.

            Do you think that the couple asked the baker to write some sort of pro-gay phrase on top of the cake? Where did you read that? That hasn’t been mentioned in any article I’ve read about this situation.

            …these two didn’t just go in there and pick out a wedding cake with congrats on it, they asked for a certain message…

            They did? What message was that? I thought they just wanted a wedding cake. I’ve never seen a wedding cake with a “message” written on it.

            Let me ask you, if the couple did not ask for a lesbian cake-topper, if they did not ask for any wording or message on the cake, …if they just wanted a tiered cake with white frosting, do you think the Kleins were justified in refusing them service?

          • Josey

            They asked for a specialty cake, what do you think it said? Adam and Eve or she and she? Get real!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Tell us, what did the cake say?

          • Michael C

            I’m not sure if that answered my question.

            They asked for a specialty cake, what do you think it said?

            Are you saying that the cake “said” something even if it didn’t say anything?

            Perhaps my question was confusing. I’ll try to rephrase it.

            A customer enters Sweet Cakes bakery, points at a picture on the wall and says “I would like to order that cake, please.”

            Do you believe that Sweet Cakes has the right to say “No, we only sell that cake to straight people”?

          • acontraryview

            “for the mechanic isn’t advertising anything but working on your car.”

            The baker isn’t advertising anything but baked goods. How is that different?

            “they asked for a certain message ”

            No, they did not. They never got to any specifics. As soon as the Kleins knew it was for a same-gender ceremony, they declined.

            “asking this couple to bake a cake celebrating their porn lifestyle.”

            A cake is inanimate. It is not capable of celebrating anything.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Porn lifestyle? Are the ladies in question adult film stars?

          • DrewTwoFish

            Porn lifestyle? Are the ladies in question adult film stars?

          • Paige Turner

            This is like talking to a dolphin and I will never be able to get through to you, that is abundantly clear. If you are unwilling to accept the legal precedent for the law then there is little point in engaging. For the final time – The proposition is very simple;

            If you provide wedding cakes then you must provide them to everyone. Your religious beliefs do not trump the law. If you don’t approve of a certain kind of marriage( which is legal) then thats fine. There are 2 choices.;
            1) Provide Wedding cakes to everyone
            2) Do not provide wedding cakes to anyone

            The message on the cake is irrelevant. Its a wedding cake. Its not a gay wedding cake, its just a cake. Providing a service is not participation.

            Refusing service is breaking the law and religious belief is not an acceptable legal defence. Your religious beliefs are not infringed upon. My previous point about Jews not providing pork products stands. Jews don’t supply pork products however they must still provide everything else to non jews. If they refuse service to non jews because they don’t approve of that they are discriminating.

          • ppp777

            You [ and this is typical of an atheist ] are totally incoherent in your debate .

          • Paige Turner

            These are legal factual arguments as opposed to Bronze Age fairy tales which is why you do not understand what’s happening.

            Providing a service is not participation. The law was broken. The end.

          • violetteal

            That is a ridiculous statement.

          • Michael C

            Which statement? Please elaborate.

          • violetteal

            “Baking a cake is providing a service and not participation just like your mechanic who services your car has no business in determining what you do with that car.”
            It’s a ridiculous statement.

          • Gott Mit Uns!

            Not baking a cake for a same-sex wedding is not a religion.

          • ppp777

            Helping to celebrate homosexual ” marriage ” certainly is .

          • acontraryview

            “They are both cakes but are for 2 very different purposes”

            It would seem to me that the purpose of each cake is to have a dessert that people can eat. How are the purposes different?

            “If a person is a professional speaker would a speech to high school students be different than a speech to corporate executives?”

            Possibly. But possibly not. Depends on if the subject were the same.

            “In this country we are given the right under the first amendment to practice our religion without government interference.”

            Where does the 1st Amendment state that we are given the right to practice our religion without interference?

            “For the government to force a Christian to provide something for an event which they see as sin and therefore have no desire to provide or be punished is unconstitutional.”

            They aren’t forced. The decision to open a business is a choice. The decision as to what products and services the business will offer is a choice. There is no “forcing”.

          • ppp777

            ” No forcing ” , a true reprobate .

          • acontraryview

            How so?

          • Cady555

            It’s a cake for a party. As Gott mentioned above, the cake is not an element of the ceremony.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “For the government to force a Christian to provide something for an event which they see as sin and therefore have no desire to provide or be punished is unconstitutional.”

            This matter has been ruled on numerous times. Those court opinions are law. Yours is not.

          • Guest

            In this country we are given the right under the first amendment to practice our religion without government interference.
            Yes, everyone is including these customers. Once others are involved their rights are in the mix.

            And no one “forced” them to sell wedding cakes, they freely offered to sell them to the public knowing that each and every member of that public has a constitutional right to not share their religious beliefs and still buy the advertised product.

            They are both cakes but are for 2 very different purposes.
            Supreme Court ruled on this in 1993 – Town tried to allow people to discriminate on the selling of goats for slaughter so that they could prevent people from buying them for ritual sacrifice. 9-0 ruling that they can’t do that merely because they don’t like legal religious purpose that the purchase was going to be used for.

            Either they sell goats for slaughter or they don’t – can’t prevent a sale because they don’t like the religious purpose it will be used for

            Either they sell wedding cakes or they don’t – can’t prevent a sale because they don’t like the religious purpose it will be used for.

            Simple as that.

        • acontraryview

          “Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?”

          He isn’t.

          “Should a professing homosexual who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-homosexual ACT of “homosexuality is a sin” gathering?”

          He isn’t.

          “Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving professing homosexuals should not be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-Christian ACT of a same-gender or polygamous wedding, or other anti-Christian ACTS.”

          In some cases yes, in others no. It would depend. For example, if a Muslim came into a bakery owned by a Christian and wanted a cake to celebrate Ramadan, the owner would not be legally allowed to refuse that order even though worshipping a god other than Christian god is against Biblical teachings. On the other hand, if a customer came into a bakery owned by a Christian and wanted a cake for a group that supported abortion, the baker would be free to refuse that order.

          • Reason2012

            He isn’t.

            Thank you for proving that a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals cannot likewise be forced to bake a cake for anti-Christian ACTS. Of course,for those who hate Christians, it’s just fine to demand Christians to promote anti-Christian ACTS with their businesses. America is waking up to the hypocrisy of such requests.

          • acontraryview

            “Thank you for proving that a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals cannot likewise be forced to bake a cake for anti-Christian ACTS.”

            My statement provided no such proof. Your saying that it did is nothing more than a lie. How do you justify lying with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “Of course,for those who hate Christians, it’s just fine to demand Christians to promote anti-Christian ACTS with their businesses”

            What is your basis for stating that requiring business to operate in accordance with the law equates to hating Christians?

            “America is waking up to the hypocrisy of such requests.”

            What hypocrisy?

            How about the hypocrisy of not making cakes for a same-gender wedding reception, but being fine making cakes for a wedding reception for people who have been divorced for reasons other than adultery? How about the hypocrisy of being fine making wedding reception cakes for a ceremony where the couple is taking their vows before a god other than the Christian god? How about the hypocrisy of making Halloween cakes? How about the hypocrisy of making cakes for a baby shower for an unwed mother? How about delivering cakes for weddings on Sunday – the Sabbath – when no work is to be done?

            Is THAT they hypocrisy you are speaking of?

          • Guest

            No one has done an anti-Christian anything. Gay Christians marry just fine and every customer has a constitutional right to NOT be a Christian anyway.

          • ppp777

            ” Homosexual Christians ” , that is an oxymoron .

          • Guest

            Not at all that’s the point. Many Christians believe the Bible when it says there is no male or female in the body of Christ, some don’t, and it’s irrelevant to what God commanded us to do.

          • ppp777

            Your obviously insane .

          • Guest

            No, just a Christian.

          • Quantz

            There are entire homosexual congregations.

          • violetteal

            Does it matter if they are Heterosexual or Gay? A person has a right to refuse to serve anyone that they wish. What the government says is different. Of course the government has lost its way a long time ago. Christians will have to pick and choose their battles from now on. Truth is that this is the beginning of persecution in America.

          • Guest

            They can refuse anyone but not for any reason.

            And having to follow the same rules about respecting the rights of others as everyone else isn’t ‘persecution’.

        • acontraryview

          “homosexuality is not”

          In order to state that as fact would require that you have complete knowledge of the entire human genome and the function of each gene as well as epigenetic factors. If you do, then you should most certainly share that tremendous knowledge with the many research teams around the globe which are working to determine the functioning of each gene in the human genome. No doubt they would be most appreciative of your assistance.

          • Reason2012

            In order to state that as fact would require that you have complete knowledge of the entire human genome and the function of each gene as well

            (1) You admit you do not know if it’s genetic – yet activists like you claim all the time it’s genetic. More false claims from the homosexual activists that you’ve unwittingly exposed – they put forth whatever talking point is called for from moment by moment. Glad you admit at the very LEAST they don’t know it’s genetic, but they do in fact keep claiming it’s genetic, which shows they’re being dishonest.

            (2) No one turns away from race, because race IS genetic – but adults CONTINUE to permanently overcome homosexuality, even some of the most hard-core homosexual activists, which shows it’s not genetic.

            Much like someone can overcome desires for young people, or desires for bestiality.

            It’s interesting activists want to pretend other perverse desires are not genetic that people can overcome, but this one perverse desire of homosexuality is genetic – more hypocrisy.

            Just call it an “orientation” – but don’t call pedophilia an “orientation” or bestiality an “orientation”. More hypocrisy that people are finally catching on to.

            The real truth is homosexuality is not an ‘orientation’ any more than desires for young people is an ‘orientation’.

            They could start pretending pedophilia is an orientation and no longer criminalize those who act on it either if the young person likes them in return – would be similar to how homosexual activists have turned homosexual behavior from something illegal and shameful to something to be coveted and praised for ‘bravery’ by the liberal press. Just use the same tactics and soon pedophilia will be coveted and praised for ‘bravery’ by the liberal press.

          • Guest

            Doesn’t matter if its genetic, epigenetic or that even all cases are for the same reason – rights aren’t genetically based. Its a false argument.

          • acontraryview

            “yet activists like you claim all the time it’s genetic”

            Since I don’t claim there is proof it is genetic your statement is false. Why do you lie so often?

            “More false claims from the homosexual activists that you’ve unwittingly exposed”

            People are free to claim whatever they like. Often those claims are false. For instance, your claim that people choosing not to engage in homosexual relations is proof that sexuality is not genetic. False.

            “So at least you rebuke the argument they love to use: that it’s genetic and hence demands special protections on those grounds.”

            I wasn’t aware that argument was made. Do you have any examples? What protections do homosexuals have that others do not? Religious belief is not genetic, yet it is a covered category in anti-discrimination laws. Should it be removed since it’s not genetic? Marital status is not genetic, yet it is a covered category. Should it be removed? Being pregnant is not genetic, yet it is a covered category. Should it be removed? Where did you get the idea that equal treatment under the law and protections against discrimination should only be based upon genetic traits?

            “which shows it’s not genetic.”

            No, it does not show that. That is a false claim that you are making. Why do you deride others for making false claims but then make false claims yourself?

            “would be similar to how homosexual activists have turned homosexual behavior from something illegal and shameful to something to be coveted and praised for ‘bravery’ by the liberal press. ”

            That you are reduced to making a false comparison between adult sexual relations and sexual relations with children shows the desperation of your stance.

            I’ll ask again:

            How about the hypocrisy of not making cakes for a same-gender wedding reception, but being fine making cakes for a wedding reception for people who have been divorced for reasons other than adultery? How about the hypocrisy of being fine making wedding reception cakes for a ceremony where the couple is taking their vows before a god other than the Christian god? How about the hypocrisy of making Halloween cakes? How about the hypocrisy of making cakes for a baby shower for an unwed mother? How about delivering cakes for weddings on Sunday – the Sabbath – when no work is to be done?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?”

          No. Because he’s not refusing to serve white people, he’s refusing to serve racists. And “racist” is not a protected class.

        • DrewTwoFish

          We don’t know if sexual orientation is genetic or not. We don’t know how orientation occurs. However what we have observed (scientifically and not anecdotally ) is that it is almost invariably immutable and that it is not chosen.

          • Becky

            Oh, rubbish. There’s nothing biological or genetical to prove that it’s innate, which means there’s no evidence to support “it is almost invariably immutable and that it is not chosen”.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Um Yeah there is some evidence. Try as you may, you can’t wish it away just because it doesn’t line up with your ideology.

          • ppp777

            It is the truth , it is clearly a perversion .

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “the attack on the bakers”

      Asking bakers to bake a cake is an attack?

      Your right to exercise your religious beliefs is a good thing, but don’t you see that conflicts arise when it interferes with the rights and/or liberty of others? Who might not share that belief? Free exercise of religion is not a “I can do whatever I want, even if it’s illegal” card. (because Oregon is one of the states where discrimination due to sexual orientation is illegal)

      “Christians are a target for homosexual activist groups”

      I think that’s completely understandable, considering Christians are the ones doing most of the discrimination here. And you do realize that there’s like 70 times more Christians than there are Muslims in this country, right?

      • Becky

        You betcha it was an attack! These two homosexuals ruined the bakers livelihood. Homosexuals know full well that Christians believe and uphold what God Almighty has commanded against homosexuality…it’s a sin…it’s an abomination against God. Yet, they still seek out Christian businesses that provide a type of wedding service (cake, florists, photography, etc). They know what’s going to happen! It’s premeditated really. However, they don’t complain about the Muslim bakeries (et al) that will refuse to serve them. Perhaps you might want to watch Louder with Crowder’s video about homosexuals and Muslim bakeries.

        Btw, not one of these cases has demonstrated that the defendants had a “I can do whatever I want, even if it’s illegal” position or attitude. They were simply defending their faith and the constitution has given them that right.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Ruined their livelihood, my foot. Those bakers got something like 3 times as much in donations than what they had to pay. They shut their shop down, but continue to run their business from their home, according to what I just read. And the argument about the Muslim bakeries AGAIN? How many Muslim bakeries do they even have in Oregon, anyway?

          • Becky

            I Praise God Almighty for Christians helping their brethren defend their religious rights.

            They were out of business for some time. They went from a successful bakery business, in a business edifice they were hoping would become a family run business, to a small home based bakery. Nope, no difference there…yeah, right.

            There have been several Christian owned businesses (florists, pizzeria, bakeries) that never actually refused an order, but simply stated (because they were asked by the liberal media) that they wouldn’t provide services for a homosexual wedding. Guess what happened to them…they were bombarded with so many threats and hateful criticism, it caused one to close their business and the others that were still open were threatened with boycotts (O’Connors from Indiana & Georgia florists). All the while, Muslim bakeries remain untouched, even though it has been made public that they, too, will refuse to provide services for homosexual weddings, which they have every right to do so. Are they being protested? No. Are they being threatened? No. Homosexual activist groups #1 target are Christians.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Just because they’re Christians, (or professing any other sort of religious belief) it doesn’t mean that they’re immune to being subjected to criticism. Or even boycotts. People completely have a right to boycott a business if they so wish. Are you trying to tell me business have some sort of “right” to not be criticized or boycotted? As for the Muslim-owned bakeries you keep bringing up, I believe they should face just as much criticism and such as any Christian bakery, if they’re doing the same thing Sweet Cakes did.

          • Becky

            You’re missing the point. Of course, everyone has the boycott rights. My point is that Christian business owners only have to say (not actually do it, just say it) they wouldn’t provide services for a ssm and they’re pulverized. However, Muslims are left alone. This is just ONE reason that Christian business owners feel targeted, intentionally targeted by the homosexual activist groups. It’s quite evident.

          • Guest

            Same as a business would suffer if they said they wouldn’t let African Americans eat at the lunch counter while whites were there.

            This business acted in an illegal, unethical and unChristian manner, of course news of that spread and people decided to not do business with them.

            “You will always harvest what you plant” seems to be a lesson these business owners missed.

          • acontraryview

            “My point is that Christian business owners only have to say (not actually do it, just say it) they wouldn’t provide services for a ssm and they’re pulverized.”

            Who are they “pulverized” by? Given that less than 4% of the population is gay, they certainly do not, on their own, have the ability to affect the viability of a business.

          • ppp777

            The certainly have with plenty of satans stooges on their side , and as for your four percent , huh more like one percent .

          • acontraryview

            “They certainly have”

            Examples?

            “and as for your four percent , huh more like one percent .”

            Basis?

          • ppp777

            Not anymore you mean , the likes of you made sure of that , but you will pay with your soul .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ooh, threaten me with a hell I don’t believe in……..scaaaary…..

          • Paige Turner

            There is not one single shred of truth in your post. Nothing.

          • ppp777

            It is nothing but truth , people like you have a lot to answer for .

          • Paige Turner

            Not to you or anyone else I don’t.
            Demonising minorities is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. Criminals like the Kleins are not Christians. They are just weapons grade bigots

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “Homosexuals know full well that Christians believe and uphold what God Almighty has commanded against homosexuality…it’s a sin…it’s an abomination against God”

          Except, not all Christians DO believe that. There’s quite a good number of Christians who don’t. Also, probably a lot of others who might believe SSM is wrong, but would just go ahead and bake them the cake anyway.

          • Becky

            The bible has a name for the so-called Christians who believe and teach that homosexuality isn’t a sin/abomination against God…they’re called false teachers (2Peter2).

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I had a feeling you would say something like that…that’s completely irrelevant here, though. You’re basically saying homosexuals shouldn’t get a wedding cake from a bakery they know is owned by Christians, right? My point is, not only does that smack of “separate but equal”, but how are they to know, just because they are Christians, that they are so opposed to same-sex marriage that they wouldn’t serve them?

          • Becky

            Would it make a difference?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, yeah. You’re saying they shouldn’t go to business that wouldn’t want to serve them. How would they know? Did Sweet Cakes advertise that they don’t make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages? Was the couple supposed to assume that, because they were Christians?

          • Becky

            I never said they shouldn’t go to businesses that wouldn’t want to serve them. I said they intentionally target their businesses. As far as homosexuals knowing who won’t or who will provide services for a wedding doesn’t matter at this point. Business owners cannot advertise that freely. Obviously, simply voicing that you would not provide a service for ssm, should the matter arise, is a death sentence for their business.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If businesses can’t advertise that they won’t serve gay weddings, then how are they being targeted? You can’t assume that they are like that just because the owners are Christians. Or, I guess what you’re saying is they should go the bakery, but if they won’t serve them, they shouldn’t raise a fuss or anything about it, even though the law is on their side in states like Oregon and others that have sexual orientation covered in their anti-discrimination laws?

            I don’t even know in if the couple in that case were or not, but hey, even some of these same-sex couples are Christians themselves, believe it or not. (even if to you, that means they’re “not true Christians”. As for me, I’m neither a Christian nor some kind of mind-reader, so if someone tells me they’re one, I take their word for it.)

          • Becky

            “If businesses can’t advertise that they won’t serve gay weddings, then how are they being targeted?”

            They can easily check ’em all out…who will and who won’t provide services for their ssw. Those who will have nothing to fear…no death threats…no loss of livelihood. Those who won’t, well, we know what happens to them.

            God’s word makes it clear who his people are. Christ said, “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:50.

            Is it God’s will that we partake in sexual immorality? No, not according to God’s word.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Or maybe they just wanted a wedding cake and happened to pick that bakery for whatever reason. Oftentimes, the simple explanation is the right one, you know.

            I guess I just don’t think baking a cake for someone;s wedding is “partaking in sexual immorality”.

          • ppp777

            If you cant get what you want form a shop , shop somewhere else , plain and simple .

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you can’t bring yourself to follow your state’s anti-discrimination laws, don’t run a business that serves the public.

          • Guest

            in your opinion, and in America everyone has a right to not share your religious opinion.

            For a Christian sin is a violation of the Law and all sin under the New Covenant comes from failures to love and forgive as per God.

            Gay Christians marry just fine regardless of their ‘male or female’.

          • ppp777

            There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian .

          • Guest

            in your opinion, that and $5 will get you a (small) latté.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Or as Chris Farley as Matt Foley, motivational speaker, would have put it….

            That and a nickel will get you a nice hot cup of jack squat!

        • acontraryview

          “These two homosexuals ruined the bakers livelihood.”

          How did they ruin their livelihood?

          “Yet, they still seek out Christian businesses that provide a type of wedding service (cake, florists, photography, etc).”

          Given that over 70% of the population identifies as being Christian, it would be difficult to find a business that was NOT owned by Christians, wouldn’t it?

          “They know what’s going to happen!”

          Actually, they don’t. Most business have no issue with providing these services. In addition, the Kleins had no issue with providing products to homosexuals. Further, the Kleins had not shown that they turned away orders for other events that involved Biblical sin – wedding cakes for people who had been divorced; baby shower cakes for unwed mothers; wedding cakes for non-Christian ceremonies, Halloween cakes. Given that, why would they have had any reason to believe that they would be turned away for this order?

          “Perhaps you might want to watch Louder with Crowder’s video about homosexuals and Muslim bakeries.”

          Perhaps you should understand that video was not done in a place that provides protections based upon sexuality, therefore it is not relevant to this issue.

          “and the constitution has given them that right.”

          Where does the Constitution provide the right to violate anti-discrimination based upon religious belief?

          • ppp777

            You reprobates always have an answer , but never a coherent one .

          • acontraryview

            What portion of my post did you find incoherent and in what way did you find it incoherent?

        • Guest

          You don’t know that the Crowder video was a joke it seems. Two of the bakeries don’t make wedding cakes at all and the third has made wedding cakes for a gay wedding, the couple even came back and got another for their first anniversary.

          My neighbor is a Muslim with a catering business and has done several gay weddings.

          The reason you don’t hear about Muslim discrimination is no one can find a case of it.

      • ppp777

        You think because something has became law that makes it right , that is incoherent thinking .

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I never said that or meant that. I just think it’s the law AND it’s right, in this case.

    • acontraryview

      “Incidentally, the cake, aside from the bride and groom, is the centerpiece of a wedding.”

      The cake is not part of the wedding. The cake is part of the reception.

      • Becky

        It’s called a wedding cake…not a reception cake. A wedding includes the marriage ceremony and/or the reception/celebration.

        • Guest

          And if a business offers wedding cakes for sale anyone can buy one for their wedding and can’t be refused because of a civil rights qualities.

        • acontraryview

          What it is called does not change when it is served. it is served at the reception, not at the wedding ceremony. Sometimes people have wedding receptions that are completely separate from the marital ceremony.

          • Becky

            It doesn’t matter if it’s served the next day at their rainbow ranch. A service was provided for a wedding, therefore the provider of that service partook in the wedding. Without their participation there would be no wedding cake (especially when dealing with homosexuals, because some how they think there’s nowhere else to go).

            Full Definition of wedding 1: a marriage ceremony usually with its accompanying festivities : nuptials (Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary)

          • acontraryview

            So then you are suggesting that if they make a wedding cake for a couple and either of the couple has been divorced for reasons other than adultery, they are participating in adultery, correct?

            If they make a cake for a baby shower for an unmarried mother, they are participating in pre-marital sex, correct?

            If they make a wedding cake for a non-christian couple, they are participating in worshipping a god other than the Christian god, correct?

          • ppp777

            You are so desperate to win this debate , the basic criteria for a marriage is one man one woman .

          • acontraryview

            The basic criteria for civil marriage is two consenting, unmarried, adults of legal age.

          • ppp777

            They are clearly central to a wedding , stop plying with words .

          • acontraryview

            To the wedding RECEPTION, dear.

    • Guest

      Actually, no. Court just rejected that kind of reasoning when atheists said that a opening a city council meeting with a prayer was forcing them to participate. Court said it wasn’t, only those who are praying are participating.

      Same with a wedding, if you aren’t the couple, the official or or otherwise on the dias you aren’t participating. The backers is no more a participant in the wedding than they guy who sold me my rolls is part of my Thanksgiving dinner.

      And again if a bakery owner feels they can’t sell wedding cakes to the public as the law required they would sell wedding cakes to the public, simple as that.

      When Matthew felt he couldnt do the job of collecting taxes as required he quit collecting taxes, same thing here.

      • Becky

        The atheist issue with the council meeting isn’t the same thing at all.

        • Guest

          Oh yes it is – merely being present at some one else acting according to their beliefs and actually taking part in their beliefs.

          You aren’t in the marriage ceremony you aren’t participating in it. Point of fact the bakery and florist shop people are usually long gone if they had enemy physically had a representative present at all.

    • Guest

      And the customers have their own right to religious liberty. As Justice Scalia ‘there is a right to religious conscious, not a right to any particular job’

      If a business owner feels he can’t sell something to the public as the law requires, respecting the customer’s own right to religious liberty and their civil rights, the. Don’t offer that something for sale. That is th extent of their religious liberty.

      And you are off base – this customer had purchased a wedding cake at the store before and returned to get another. There was no ‘targeting’. And you don’t hear about Mulslim owned business problems because they don’t refuse. Muslim caterer neighbor loves doing gay weddings.

    • DrewTwoFish

      I don’t want you participating in my lewdness, trust me.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    I’ve never heard of a wedding cake being part of a marriage ceremony. A wedding reception maybe, but not a marriage ceremony.

  • Dan Jones

    Sinners attack…

  • Reason2012

    Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

    Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

    And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

    Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

    1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

    Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

    The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

    Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

    God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

    Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

    Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

    Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

    Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

    These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

    Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination …”

    Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

    1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

    1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

    2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

    Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

    And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

    Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

    Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

    And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

    Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

    May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after
      decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not
      genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental
      instability and/or abuse.”

      I disagree. However, it’s irrelevant in this case. Oregon has anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class. The Kleins broke the law.

      • Paige Turner

        The Kleins also had their bank accounts garnished by the department of labour. They also posted the personal contact details on facebook of the couple that were awarded damages. The couple ended up with death threats.

        • Cady555

          The Kleins collected $500k on thr Internet to pay a $135k fine. They had the money.

          • Paige Turner

            Indeed they did.

            They chose not pay the damages and they also did not pay the department of labor. This is what happens when you have a court order which is ignored. Garnishing an account is not stealing, it is a standard procedure under the circumstances. It is a court order.

          • Cady555

            Yes. And they are whining “the govt garnished my jesus bank account.” They are shocked, shocked, that they the are expected to obey court orders.

      • Reason2012

        Do you think a black man who has no problem serving white people should be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-black ACT of a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering?

        I would hope not. The request is bigotry from the ones who sought him out to try forcing him to do so.

        Should a professing homosexual who has no problem serving Christians be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-homosexual ACT of “homosexuality is a sin” gathering?

        No. The request would also be bigotry from the ones who sought them out to try forcing them to do so.

        Likewise a Christian who has no problem serving professing homosexuals should not be forced to also bake a cake for the anti-Christian ACT of a same-gender or polygamous wedding, or other anti-Christian ACTS. The request is also bigotry from the ones making the request.

        The ones breaking discrimination laws in these cases were those making those bigoted requests.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          OK, you know I’ve been watching this conversation for a little bit now….my responses are gonna be just about the same thing as those from the couple of other people you already tried that argument out on. The hypothetical examples you’re giving aren’t comparable to this situation.

          • Reason2012

            The hypothetical examples you’re giving aren’t comparable to this situation.

            Anti-black racists would say the same thing so they could treat black people racist in such situations. Anti-homosexual bigots would say the same thing so they could treat black people racist in such situations. And it’s anti-Christian bigots that are trying to do just that to Christians.
            Religion is just as protected in this country as race.

          • acontraryview

            And in certain locations, sexuality is just as protected as religion and race.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Like I said though, religion is protected up until the point it messes with someone else’s rights and/or liberty.

            Maybe I’m going off on a bit of a tangent here, but one argument I’ve seen a lot lately is that sexual orientation shouldn’t be a ‘protected class’…..because it’s a behavior, a choice, not something you’re born with, etc, etc. Those are at best, debatable reasons. But, hey, let’s apply that thinking to other things. You know what is a choice and not something you’re born with? Your religion. If someone is going to make that argument about sexual orientation, then they can’t say religion should be a protected class, right?

          • DrewTwoFish

            Zing!

        • Guest

          It’s the business that has the obligation, not any particular person. Have an employee that doesn’t want to the job let another employee, hire a temp, 3rd party contract it out.

    • Paige Turner

      This is the second time that I have seen this exact post.

      Are you just cutting and pasting the same thing over and over again?

      • Quantz

        He does have a tendency to do that.

    • acontraryview

      “Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic,”

      People who are left-handed can learn to write with the right hand. That does not change that they were genetically born left-handed. People choosing not to act on their innate sexuality does not prove that sexuality is not genetic.

      ‘And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality”

      No, that is what the writers of the Gospels said about homosexuality. You have CHOSEN to believe that is the word of God. Unless you are God, you cannot say with certainty what his/her views are.

      • Reason2012

        People who are left-handed can learn to write with the right hand. That does not change that they were genetically born left-handed.

        Thank you for then proving transgenderism is a lie then – since the transgender activists claim how you feel trumps genetics but your response would be “that does not change the way you were genetically born”.

        PS You haven’t proven people are born homosexual. No one can change race just because of how they feel, but people have risen above homosexuality: observable, repeatable fact. Google ex-gay and be flooded with personal testimonies of those who have done just that. Why do you hate those who have risen above homosexuality? How does it affect you?

        • acontraryview

          “Thank you for then proving transgenderism is a lie then – since the transgender activists claim how you feel trumps genetics but your response would be “that does not change the way you were genetically born”.”

          No, that does not prove that transgenderism is a lie. Until a person has gender reassignment surgery, they remain the gender they were born. That has nothing to do with being transgender.

          “You haven’t proven people are born homosexual.”

          There is no proof regarding the basis for sexuality – homo or hetero. It has not been proven that it is genetic, nor has it been proven that it is not. Your statement that people choosing not to act on their sexuality is therefore proof that it is not genetic is false.

          “Google ex-gay and be flooded with personal testimonies of those who have done just that.”

          What you will find is people who have chosen not to act on their sexuality. That is not the same as changing their sexuality.

          “Why do you hate those who have risen above homosexuality?”

          I don’t. People are free to choose their own path. I harbor no ill will toward them.

          “How does it affect you?”

          It doesn’t. How does people being homosexual affect you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “No, that does not prove that transgenderism is a lie. Until a person has
            gender reassignment surgery, they remain the gender they were born.
            That has nothing to do with being transgender.”

            Just a small issue with that statement…..it should be “sex reassignment surgery”, shouldn’t it? Because a transgender person can live as a different gender without changing their sex.

            Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. 😀

          • acontraryview

            I believe in this instance “sex” and “gender” mean the same thing.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Yeah, people don’t always use the terminology consistently, I guess….

          • acontraryview

            Tomato, tomahto.

          • Guest

            The current usage is:
            Sex=male, female
            Gender=masculine, feminine.

          • Diaris

            Loser, lozer

          • acontraryview

            LOL. Now with you.

  • Nidalap

    No telling how the case will turn out. Homosexuals have been designated as a “protected class”. That term is mutually exclusive towards another term, “equal protection”. Where the one exists, the other does not…

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “Homosexuals have been designated as a “protected class”.”

      Not quite. It’s sexual orientation, any sexual orientation, that has been designated a protected class (in some states – like Oregon – but not all) The term is kind of misleading, I think. It implies that some group of people are receiving special treatment, when all it really is is designating a characteristic that people can’t legally be discriminated against for. The other ‘protected classes’ that already existed were things like age, race, religion, and veteran status. So, it’s not special treatment, it IS equal protection.

      • ppp777

        Perversion is not equal .

        • Carcosa

          the law says they are.

    • acontraryview

      “Homosexuals have been designated as a “protected class”.”

      No, they have not. In some places sexuality has been designated as a basis upon which refusal of service is not legal. That applies to all sexualities – not just homosexual.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    I’ve never heard of a wedding cake being part of a marriage ceremony. A wedding reception maybe, but not a marriage ceremony.

    • ppp777

      Go back into your coma will you .

  • violetteal

    I hope the Kleins win and then sue the state. These “women” who claim to be so damaged by rejection, need to grow up. I have no sympathy for them.

    • Paige Turner

      Given that the Kleins made $500k in crowd funding from their situation but also had their bank accounts garnished by the department of labor and also refused to pay the fine then Im wondering who should be growing up. The Kleins also posted the personal details of the couple that were discriminated against on face book and they ended up with death threats and harassment as a result.

      Perhaps the Kleins should donate the remaining funds to a charity rather than wasted money on a legal case?

      • Michael C

        (The couple did not receive death threats nor were they harassed as a result of Aaron Klein publishing their personal information on his facebook for a day. There is no evidence that they were harmed in any way by this action.)

        • Guest

          Yes and the body said that the amount of the fine had nothing to do with these factors – a previous case they find a business over $400,000 for a single infraction. I think they need a different standard for determining fines for first time offenses.

        • Paige Turner

          Yes, the couple did receive harassment and death threats. Their application for adoption was also under threat as was their home due to the actions of the Klein’s. The Klein’s had their bank accounts garnished for other fines imposed by the department of labor.

          • Michael C

            The doxxing incident was not the cause of those threats. The facebook post was up for a day and Klein only had a few ‘friends’ at the time. There is no evidence that this action resulted in any harassment against the couple. The intentional temporary release of the couple’s personal information did not lead to any damages. Yes, Aaron Klein did publish the couple’s personal information on his facebook. No, none of the damages awarded to the couple had anything to do with this incident.

            Some blogger fabricated this story and it was picked up by a couple outlets. It is untrue.

            The only reason I bring this up is because I believe it is important to have the facts straight when presenting an argument.

          • Paige Turner

            If you believe in the facts then you should address the issue of the garnishing of their bank accounts by the department of labor and the reasons for that as well as the crowd funding of $500k and what has happened to those funds.

          • Michael C

            I think you think I think things that I don’t think.

          • Paige Turner

            Mental gymnastics. What you think is irrelevant.

            The Klein’s are not the “pure as driven snow” christians that they are trying to make themselves look like and are trying to spin this case to their financial advantage.

            They broke the law – twice. They need to be held responsible and pay the price and not use hyperbole rather, they need to tell the truth.

            They were fined and had their bank account garnished. Not very good business people or good Christians. Bearing false witness is a big No No isn’t it?

          • Michael C

            Yes. Absolutely. All of that. I agree with you. I look forward to the day when sexual orientation and gender identity are added to the list of protected characteristics on the federal level. I could be the next president to usher in that long overdue change.

            However, the idea that any percentage of the sum of the damages awarded to the Klein’s victims of discrimination was in any way influenced by the doxxing incident is false. Yes, Aaron Klein doxxed them. No, there is no evidence that this action lead to any harassment or threats. No damage, no relief for damage.

            It’s a minor detail, I know. But I think it’s important to know and convey the facts as they are.

          • Paige Turner

            Needless to say, you have not addressed the issues of the broken laws.

          • Michael C

            Are you serious right now? My history is not private. Take a minute.

            I apologize for assuming that you wouldn’t want to be spreading lies.

          • Paige Turner

            Im very serious.

            The Klein’s posted the vicious comments on facebook and then removed them however the damage had been done. This doesn’t mean that the posts did not happen nor does it mean that they did not cause damage.

            There is also the issue of the labour department and this story misrepresenting that as Christian persecution instead of what it really is. The Kleins refused to pay fines.

            The Kleins are dubious business people and even more dubious Christians.

          • Michael C

            This doesn’t mean that the posts did not happen nor does it mean that they did not cause damage.

            Aaron Klein posted a copy of the complaint (including the couple’s phone number and address) on his facebook for a day. Like I said, yeah, that happened. The court found zero damage resulting from that action. To say that this specific action lead to death threats and harassment against the couple is a lie. To say that this specific action was a factor for the court when determining the amount of damages awarded to the couple is a lie. The only reason I brought this to your attention is because I assumed that you wouldn’t want to spread lies. I wasn’t attempting to challenge any other point that you were attempting to make.

            Apparently, all you want to do is argue, even with people who agree with you.

          • Paige Turner

            This Christian site confuses me.

            Down is up
            Up is down

          • ppp777

            Pick an atheist one then , they are more your level

          • Paige Turner

            Atheist sites actually make sense and have facts

          • ppp777

            Boy you are in trouble .

          • Paige Turner

            No trouble. Just Reality, science and intelligence.
            Refreshing compared with bronze age fairy tales.

          • ppp777

            And that coming from an evolutionist , hum like said .

          • Paige Turner

            Your post makes absolutely no sense.

          • Guest

            That is a lien, common practice when people have been fined and don’t pay it. I used to put liens on people who owed my business as soon as they were more than 90 days behind.

            If they had dealt with the fine as required it wouldn’t have been necessary at all.

          • Paige Turner

            Correct. They tried to play games and it didn’t work and it wont work with this new law firm either. Its a publicity stunt.

      • violetteal

        It’s principle. First the state will fine you for practicing your religion in business and then at home. Soon the they will be coming in the middle of the night to round Christians up into camps and the to death. I’ve seen this before, all too many times.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Now that’s a slippery-slope argument if I’ve ever seen one.

          Are you really saying you’ve seen Christians rounded up into camps and put to death…..and “all too many times”, at that?

        • Guest

          Funny. It was the business that interfered with the customer’s religious freedom by applying a religious test they had to pass to to buy the product that was advertised to the public.

          If someone’s religious conscience won’t let them sell a product as the law requires then don’t offer it to the public in the first place, problem solved.

          • ppp777

            Why don’t you shop somewhere else if you don’t get what you want , problem solved

          • Guest

            Why doesn’t the business sell what they offered to the public while respecting the law and the customer’s civil rights? Again conscience won’t let them sell something legally a Christian wouldn’t be selling it at all.

          • ppp777

            Because [ like every reasonable human on earth ] , there is a line drawn on the sand , and with Christians it is promoting a perversion .

          • Guest

            And a perversion for a Christian is not loving or forgiving, the two things from what all a Christian has been commanded to do flow from.

            For a Christian who sins to deny offered service to someone because they think they are a sinner just goes to show they weren’t even trying to act like a Christian at all.

          • ppp777

            Your opinion on Christianity is selective and twisted , Christians don’t knowingly promote sin of any kind and certainly won’t promote something that is objectively a perversion , it is called integrity and character something that atheists know very little about .

          • Guest

            The Pharisees were know for their prideful attitudes, ones a Christian eschews.

            God bless and have a good evening.

        • Paige Turner

          Its the law. Principle has nothing to do with it.

          The Klein’s broke multiple laws and will need to pay the penalty.

          Fortune telling about what you think is next is not a legal defence. No where in the world where marriage equality has been the law for a significant period of time has any of the nonsense that you have proposed occurred.

          Christians are 70% of the population in the USA. I don’t think you are in any danger.

          The majority do not get to impose their will on minorities just because of their numbers.

          • ppp777

            No the hand full of perverts get to impose their will on the majority , that’s democracy for you .

          • Paige Turner

            The majority does not get to impose its will on the minority just because there are more of them. This is why there are laws to protect minorities against discrimination.

            More does not equal better or right. Protection is required and when those laws are broken then the full force of the law should be used in retribution and punishment. You would expect this if someone broke a law that impacted you directly and caused you harm in some way. This is the scenario that has played out in Oregon.

            Opinion of what you think as to what is perversion is irrelevant as it is simply an ill informed and ignorant opinion and has no relevance to the law. You can have your opinion which is your right however it’s not a defence in a legal case.

            You cannot ignore laws you don’t like or disagree with.

          • violetteal

            Principle has everything to do with it. The constitution is based on long standing principles.

          • Paige Turner

            Baking a cake is not participation just like the supermarket selling ingredients for you to have a devil worshipping party is not participation in that either.

            Its very simple. Provide wedding cakes to everyone or no one. Religious beliefs don’t trump the law and law does not allow for discrimination but does allow for same sex marriage.

          • violetteal

            Actually, religious beliefs do trump law, if the law is unethical or oppressive and is against the constitution. These women made it a point to inform the bakery owners what the cake was for, know that they would be rejected.

          • Paige Turner

            Im not sure which legal books that you have been reading but religious beliefs do not trump the law.

            If this was the case, you could stone someone to death and then claim that they were a blasphemer and it was God’s punishment.

            The issue with the baker is elegantly simple. The bakers provide wedding cakes to the public. They cannot discriminate against people who want a wedding cake. The baker refused to sell a couple a wedding cake which was discrimination and against Oregon law. Simple.

            Religious beliefs are not a defence.

            The answer is for the baker either sell wedding cakes to everyone or to not sell wedding cakes to anyone.

      • ppp777

        Poor old lesbians poor dears , wait to they face God [ and you for that matter ] , then you will beg for ” hurt feelings ” .

        • Paige Turner

          What nonsense. God is a myth. The Kleins broke the law.
          The end.

    • acontraryview

      “need to grow up.”

      The Kleins CHOSE to open a business in a location that provides protections based upon sexuality. The Kleins CHOSE to offer wedding cakes at their business. The Kleins CHOSE to refuse an order based upon the sexuality of the people ordering the cake. Now the Kleins are complaining that they are being held accountable for their choices.

      If anyone needs to “grow up” in this case, it is the Kleins.

      • violetteal

        They were in business before that law was in effect. Truth is, the law is unconstitutional.

        • acontraryview

          “They were in business before that law was in effect.”

          How is that relevant?

          “Truth is, the law is unconstitutional.”

          How so?

          • ppp777

            For all of recorded history marriage was between a man and a woman , and it will always will be , of course trying to reason with someone like you is a waste of time .

          • acontraryview

            Actually, through most of recorded history marriage was between one man and multiple women, and still is in many places.

            “and it will always will be”

            That is clearly false.

          • Carcosa

            well that’s not true, there are plenty of historical examples of same gender marriages

        • Guest

          The civil rights law? No it wasn’t. Religious discrimination for over 50 years in Oregon, sex for over 40, sexual orientation 6 years.

          I think you are confused – anyone can have a wedding, that requires no law or license.

    • Chip01

      Haha- why did you put the word woman in Quotes?

      If you had out Christian in quotes when referencing the bakers…, now that would have made sense.

      • violetteal

        They are wounded little girls whose feeling were hurt.

        • Chip01

          True. The fake Christian bakers should pay.

          • ppp777

            ” Fake Christians ” , how did you come to that conclusion ?

          • Chip01

            there is nothing Christian about imposing bigotry on others, and hiding behind a religion to try and get away with it.

        • Carcosa

          you would be upset too if someone posted your personal information none Facebook and caused you to be harassed and threatened

    • Ambulance Chaser

      I don’t know whether they claimed to be injured or not but the state certainty felt that they were.

      Anyway, on what grounds do you believe the Kleins should win their case?

      • violetteal

        False prosecution and the state infringing on their rights. The state of California charge all comers into the state $300 to register their cars, that didn’t meet the state’s emissions requirement. The government knew it was wrong but did it anyway. Fast forward a few years and a court battle. California had to reimburse all of that money. Some sued and won.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          OK, “the state infringing on my rights” is not a cause of action. And “false prosecution” is not applicable because, for one, nobody is being prosecuted, for another there is no such cause of action as “malicious prosecution” and for a third, the matter is up on appeal before the state Court of Appeals. No one is starting any new lawsuits.

        • Carcosa

          and what rights are being infringed on? they agreed to follow the states anti-discrimination laws when they applied for a business license

      • ppp777

        Because they have right on their side of course .

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “Right” is irrelevant. Why is the Kleins’ position more in line with the law than the couple’s?

    • ppp777

      They are hell bound reprobates .

      • violetteal

        Never judge them. I feel sorry for them because they are so hateful and wounded over this, that they don’t see the damage they are doing. They are like big children having a tantrum, ruining the house that they live, because they didn’t get cake. Their whole so-called marriage will be marred by this and they will never be happy. Pray for them, don’t wish them hell.

    • Carcosa

      and on what grounds will they sue the state? they clearly broke the law

      • violetteal

        Laws aren’t always just. That’s why we have a constitution. States have made laws in the past that we overturned because they were wrong.

        • Carcosa

          and the supreme court has ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional

  • Cady555

    The Kleins posted the couple’s personal information and kept their names and the issue in the media. As a result, the couple was harrassed. They were in the process of adopting children from foster care. These children nearly lost their home, not because the couple were bad parents, but because they were put in danger when the Kleins publicized the family’s address.

    The article treats harassment as a horrible thing, which it is, but the Kleins brought it on themselves by publicizing the situation in the media. The couple stayed out of the media. The fine was so large because of the Klein’s actions.

    • Michael C

      I forget where this account of the story came from but it is inaccurate. Aaron Klein did post a copy of the original complaint on his facebook, yes. Printed on the complaint was the couple’s telephone number and home address. The couple was informed about it, Klein was asked to remove it, he did so within a day. He had, like, ten ‘friends’ at the time. There is no evidence that anyone obtained their address from Klein’s facebook. They were not harassed as a result of their personal information being shared on Klein’s facebook for a day.

      The damages rewarded to the couple do not take this incident into account because the couple was not actually harmed by the temporary publication of their phone number and home address. They could have been, but they were not.

      What is true is that, because of all of the national attention this case was getting, the couple experienced very real concerns that they could lose their children. They were in the process of adopting their foster children and were told that the children could be removed if there were privacy concerns. This couple remained extremely private throughout the entire ordeal while the Kleins were traveling around the country giving interviews for television and newspapers and blogs and whoever might pay attention to them. Their lawyers knew that the Kleins would lose their case. They knew that the only way to turn this around in their favor was get a lot of national attention, whipping up furor and frenzy, all in the effort of raising money.

      While the victims of discrimination were basically in hiding, the Kleins were on Fox News getting people to give them half a million dollars (and who knows how much ADF raised for themselves off of this case).

      • Guest

        In actuality I wouldn’t be surprised if the court reduced the fine. I don’t understand why Oregon’s fines are exponentially higher than other states and I do think that a $135,000 fine for a first single infraction is abusive. Look at Arlene’s Flowers LLC case in Washington to the north – the max fine per infraction is $2000 plus legal fees (which the state has generously set at $1 in this case)

        Though the Klines will get a windfall either way, I think the courts should tell the body setting the fines that they need to be reasonable – the fines are supposed to be educational, not punitive and potentially business closing.

        • Michael C

          The $135,000 was not a fine. It was compensation for damages. They may have also been required to pay a much smaller fine, I’m not sure.

          It’s a tough call and I’m not sure how I feel about the extremely large penalty. On one hand, I don’t think that the horrible feelings one must experience when being discriminated against aren’t worth $70,000. On the other hand, there needs to be a very real deterrent to prevent companies from violating the law. I don’t think a couple thousand dollar fine would concern a large company (or even a small one).

          • Guest

            I think it should be more escalating with the eventual being you lose your business license. I mean I sure didn’t get $70,000 when I found the whole cockroach in my hot and sour soup, but the restaurant was eventually shut down because of repeated infractions like this.

            The first penalty should be educational, not punitive, there’s time for that later I’d the business owner is recidivist.

          • Michael C

            …like Arlene’s Flowers. I can see that. I can’t say that I disagree with that at all.

          • Guest

            Found a case from 2012 where an Oregon Christian dental worker was awarded awarded $12,000 in back pay, $10,654 in out-of-pocket expenses attributable to the unlawful employment practices, and $325,000 in damages for mental, emotional, and physical suffering, and found Respondents jointly and severally liable for these damages. The forum also required the dentist and his staff to attend training on recognizing and preventing religious discrimination.

            He pressured her to go to a seminar that was Scientology-based doctrine.

            Oregon’s BOLI just goes for the big awards – obviously a different philosophy about this than other states.

  • acontraryview

    There is no justification for threats or hateful attacks on any person. With that said, such actions are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Kliens violated the law. Period.

    • Guest

      The reality is they had a couple episodes of picketing and some angry emails and that’s about it. No indication the vehicle prowl at their home was anything other than the kind my neighborhood has 3 times a week and activists spreading the news that the business operates illegally is not illegal unto itself.

      If you go to the local sites you will find the closed the business because their clients canceled and once everyone knew how they did business few wanted to do business with them. Since groups like the American Family Association organized business boycotts like that all the time it would be a bit hypocritical to complain when others do it too.

  • acontraryview

    ““The government should never force people to violate their conscience or celebrate causes they don’t believe in,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, which will be representing the couple in court.”

    Then Kelly and First Liberty Institute should be working to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as all subsequent civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including the portions that prohibit discrimination based upon religious belief. I wonder why they aren’t doing so?

  • Chip01

    Wow. This story has more lives than a cat…

    The bakers had zero hardship from this whole process, so there is no Sainthood in their future. (Regardless of how hard they try)
    They closed their physical address, and went on line
    They receive from others like them cash at 2xs the actual amount ordered to pay (cash that could have actually done what Jesus wanted, and helped people in actual need)
    And they enjoy the limelight of having people bicker over them… All for something they themselves caused.

    The American Dream.

  • Peter Leh

    None of this is a surprise to those who own a business. We are required to follow the law and set up our business policy accordingly.

    Of the thousands of ways to LEGALLY refuse service just don’t pick the few ILLEGAL: race, religion, sex, age, disability, in many states and soon coming to all states: sexual orientation.

    all other forms are legal.

    BUS 101

    • mai1dude39

      Yeah yeah, with you it’s always BUS 101. That’s why people major in business, so they learn: “Kiss up to homosexuals, or those vindictive slobs will drag you into court and put you out of business.”

      • Peter Leh

        “Kiss up to homosexuals, or those vindictive slobs will drag you into court and put you out of business.””

        lol

        Again.. if you knew business you know what you say is does not have to be the case.

        Try again. 🙂

      • Carcosa

        it’s more like ‘follow the law or be put out of business”

  • Sherry patterson

    A wedding cake is part of a celebration…
    we were in the wedding business, offering a chapel for 16 years in which people could have a special place to marry..we closed…we refuse to marry same sex..
    God oversees each union and recognizes each union..however he DOES NOT APPROVE OF SAME SEX..therefore as a Born Again Christian, we closed the business..it’s a shame that people feel to force people to their lifestyle

    • Guest

      Good decision – what was it Justice Scalia said “there is a right to religious conscience, not to a particular job.” We, as a people, have said that religious discrimination in a public offer goes against our common ethics. A business can run as a private club or non-profit and select the people they want to serve but make an offer to the public and their right to religious freedom shields them from any religious test the business owner might want to toss their way.

      Can’t sell something to those of the public with different beliefs best to find something else to sell to the public.

  • BarkingDawg

    They will lose. Oregon law is quite clear on the matter.

  • Kettle Meatpot

    True religious conviction, one could posit, would require that one weigh
    the benefits of pursuing worldly profit over the spiritual liabilities
    of compromising one’s faith / religious conscious. Apparently there are some (in matters of
    personal religious standards) who find themselves mired in a quandary, albeit a quandary of their own creation.