Oregon Court Upholds Order to Pay $135K in ‘Emotional Damages’ for Declining to Make Cake for Same-Sex ‘Wedding’

PORTLAND, Ore. — The Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that ordered Sweet Cakes by Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to two lesbian women for declining to make a cake for their same-sex “wedding” in 2014.

“[G]iven BOLI’s detailed factual findings about the effect of the refusal of service on these particular complainants—including anger, depression, questioning their own identity and self-worth, embarrassment, shame, frustration, along with anxiety and reduced excitement about the wedding itself—we cannot say that the order is so far out of line with previous cases that it lacks substantial reason,” wrote Judge Chris Garrett on behalf of the panel.

“We conclude that … the final order does not impermissibly burden the Kleins’ right to the free exercise of their religion because it simply requires their compliance with a neutral law of general applicability, and the Kleins have made no showing that the state targeted them for enforcement because of their religious beliefs,” he stated.

The ruling comes as another case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, is currently being considered by the nation’s highest court. Oral argument was heard in that case on Dec. 5, and a decision is expected in June 2018.

As previously reported, the Kleins were fined $135,000 two years ago after Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) Commissioner Brad Avakian declared that they had discriminated against two lesbian women for declining to help out with their same-sex “wedding.”

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.”

  • Connect with Christian News

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,” 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.”

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. They later went out of business altogether.

In April 2015, Alan McCullough, an administrative judge with the bureau, recommended that the Kleins pay emotional damages totaling $135,000, with one of the women receiving $75,000 and the other $60,000. Prosecutors had sought damages of $75,000 each. McCullough outlined that Laurel Bowman was awarded a lesser amount because he believed that her claims were exaggerated.

“In this case, the forum concludes that $75,000 and $60,000, are appropriate awards to compensate Complainants [Rachel] and [Laurel], respectively, for the emotional suffering they experienced from Respondents’ cake refusal. [Laurel] is awarded the lesser amount because she was not present at the cake refusal and the forum found her testimony about the extent and severity of her emotional suffering to be exaggerated in some respects,” he wrote.

“Laurel ‘was a very bitter and angry witness who had a strong tendency to exaggerate and over-dramatize events,’ argued with the Kleins’ attorney and ‘had to be counseled by the ALJ to answer the questions asked of her instead of editorializing about the cake refusal and how it affected her,’ and her ‘testimony was inconsistent in several
respects with more credible evidence,'” the appeals court also outlined on Thursday.

As previously reported, some outlets had wrongly claimed—and later apologized for publishing—that the Kleins were not ordered to pay damages for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian’s same-sex ceremony, but were rather punished for inadvertently “publishing” the women’s addresses on Facebook by uploading the filed consumer complaint—a public document that had not been redacted by the government—on their new personal page that only had 17 friends at the time. The Kleins deleted the status after being informed that the document was not redacted.

“I was just notified that the [complainants’] info was on the document I posted. Totally didn’t think about that, was a mistake and I apologize. I hope nobody used it for anything bad,” Aaron Klein posted.

The order from BOLI outlined that the complaint form that one of the women completed included a disclaimer noting that once submitted, their information would now become “subject to Oregon’s public records law.” This means that the personal address and phone number that was supplied would able to be seen by the public and the subject of the complaint.

However, the woman said that because she submitted the form via her Smartphone, the disclaimer “was not visible.”

While BOLI concluded that the Kleins were “guilty” of discrimination for declining to supply the cake for the lesbian’s same-sex event, and were willing to award the women damages for emotional distress surrounding the denial, it ultimately refused the women any additional damages for the Facebook mishap nor for the matter having been in the media.

Avakian accepted McCollough’s recommendation and ordered the Kleins to pay the women $135,000 in light of the emotional damages Cryer and Bowman listed for being denied the “wedding” cake. 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 2015, 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 have been held in an escrow account pending the final outcome of the case. The rest of the $500,000 received in donations has been used for legal fees, according to The Oregonian.

While the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the emotional damages leveled against the Kleins, it disagreed with the lower court that the couple had violated a state law that prohibits businesses from advertising their intent to engage in discriminatory practices. It said that statements made by the Kleins in the midst of legal proceedings merely outlined what they had said on the day that Cryer asked them to make the cake for the event, and that they would fight the matter in court.

“BOLI relied heavily on statements in the [Tony] Perkins interview—taken out of context—to conclude that the Kleins had communicated an intention to discriminate in the future,” the court concluded. “When those statements and the note are viewed in their proper context, the record does not support BOLI’s conclusion that the Kleins violated ORS 659A.409. We therefore reverse that part of BOLI’s order.”

Read the ruling here in full.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Blake Paine

    Right ruling. Same head of BOLI awarded $348,000 to a Christian discriminated against by a business a year earlier.

    • Recognizing_Truth

      Wholly unrelated and completely different. No way to conflate the two.
      In that case, a dentist threatened to fire an assistant of his unless she attended a Scientology “training course”. That is NOT the same as saying “no thank you, we don’t want to take the job” to a potential customer who can go, literally, just down the street to buy the same thing.

      • James E. McFaddin

        Or enter thru the back door, drink out that other water fountain, buy a house in the neighborhood acroos the tracks or any of the other numerous things bigots (racial, christian or otherwise) implement to relegate others to second class.

      • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

        If you sell a product, and will sell it to person A but not person B, you better have a good reason. They didn’t have a good reason.

        • Recognizing_Truth

          They had a good reason:
          “Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings”

          It was the EVENT/PURPOSE that was at issue, not “person A” vs “person B”.

          • TruthvLIes

            And we can say that until we are blue in the face, but those who are determined to milk this for all its worth have decided they know the mind of the Kleins better than they do and that they refused to make the cake because the customers were lesbians even though it has been said over and over again that prior to this they have served these lesbians and have never turned them away because they were lesbians.

            Am I the only here that has the intelligence to work that one out (besides yourself that is).

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            And the event/purpose is none of their business. If you sell a product, you don’t get to decline service to people because you don’t like them.

          • ppp777

            It is very much their business when what they will do will promote perversion , and its political too .

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            The way you define “perversion” is probably not the way most reasonable people define it.

        • TruthvLIes

          You are so dimwitted dear princess. The Kleins do not sell cakes to celelbrate same sex marriage to ANYONE. That is right…ANYONE.

          So do tell me how they were discriminating against these two dimwits?

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            You have been told that, by people more articulate than myself. They were fined for doing exactly what you said, not selling to people they hate. The product does not change, a cake is a cake. In their state it is legal to marry someone if the same gender. They refused to based on a personal prejudice, and now they have a rather large problem in their hands. What a shame they couldn’t have refrained from judging as Christ teaches, eh?

          • ppp777

            You keep digging .

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            For what?

        • ppp777

          Promoting perversion is a good enough reason to any level headed person .

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            It isn’t perversion in any sense of the word.

      • Blake Paine

        They are both civil rights violations and mischaracterizing the business owner’s repeated requests to attend the Scientology run business seminars as a ‘threat to fire’ shows you are trying to craft a difference that is no difference.

        In both cases people were treated illegally by a business, both fined according to the result of their crime. The employee can get another job, the customer can go to another business.

        I repeat, Oregon has large fines for civil rights violations. Can’t mischaracterize this one as excessive when it is consistent with others.

  • marik

    Very expensive emotions. Apparently Christians’ emotions are of lower value.

    So they never really wanted “equality” at all.

    • Recognizing_Truth

      Correct. It is not about “equality” or “equal rights”. It is always about removal of and denial of God-given rights (especially those protected, by the Constitution, from being infringed by the government) which are then replaced with privileges that government grants and rescinds. Privileges that are wielded by governments and fake-justice “warriors” as weapons to threaten others in order to obtain specific behavior.

      • James E. McFaddin

        This may have been true in the antebellum south, it may have been true prior to women suffrage and it may have been true prior to the civil rights movement
        However in 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which focused on discrimination in public service or hiring.

        The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits public accommodations from refusing service to customers because of skin color, race, religion, sex, nationality, or any physical conditions a customer can’t prevent.

        Now I guess you will now defend your Homophobia.

        • it is not about homophobia. It is about morality and common sense. One’s race/ethnicity is innate. Sexual perversion is not.

          • James E. McFaddin

            As I said your homophobia would come out. These people are perverse because their sexual orientation is not innate. Here is something to chew on, neither is you religion or nationality.

          • Sorry but sexual perversion is not innate and everyone is created by God to be heterosexual.

            Here is something for you to chew on….religion and nationality has nothing to do with it.

          • james blue

            “religion and nationality has nothing to do with it.”

            The point is that they are not innate characteristics (at least not religion) yet they are named protected classes

          • Being a pervert is not protected by anyone or anything except Satan.

          • james blue

            What does that have to do with anything?

          • Homosexuality is a perversion and those who practice it are perverts.

          • james blue

            Okay, but how does that change the fact that religion isn’t an innate characteristic?

          • It has nothing to do with it.

            And our desire to gravitate toward religion/spirituality is innate.

          • james blue

            So “desire” is innate?

          • Yes

          • james blue

            Then being homosexual and desiring to marry a person of your gender is innate…..right?

          • Because of Adam and Eve’s sin we are born with the propensity to sin but not born to sin any particular sin therefore no one is born to be homosexual, a thief, murderer, etc, etc.

          • james blue

            Ah.. so YOUR desires are innate, but the desires of others are not.

            Religion is a choice, it is not innate

          • The desire to sin is innate but it is not innate to sin any one particular sin.

            God is Spirit. The desire to seek out God is innate for He put that desire within us when He made us in His likeness.

          • james blue

            But religion is still a choice and not innate. It no more deserves forced accommodation than sexuality does.

          • Romans 1:18-20New King James Version (NKJV)
            God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
            18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

          • James 1:12-18New King James Version (NKJV)
            Loving God Under Trials
            12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
            16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Homosexuality is recognized as a normal variation in basic human sexuality which occurs throughout nature, and it is only considered a perversion by those who have been poorly indoctrinated.

          • The animals do it so we can do it too?

            We are not animals. Homosexuality is a perversion and a sin and as with all sin Christ Jesus is the only cure; the only way to avoid eternal damnation.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            The animal example was only given to show that it is natural. As for whether we “should” do it, well, that depends on whether you have the attraction, doesn’t it? And if you do, there isn’t much you can do to change it.

          • We are made in the image and likeness of God. Cannibalism is natural in the animal world. Would you condone that as acceptable for humans?

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Unless someone was starving to death, no. But if the only attraction
            you can form is to the same gender then there is nothing wrong with
            forming a loving bond with another likeminded person.

          • Explain that demonic stupidity to God because He is the one who said it is sin and He is the one that said repent of your sins and accept Christ as your Savior or you will spend eternity in the lake of fire where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            I am aware that your faith teaches you that God said that.
            I do not believe that’s the case.
            And try to imagine how hollow your threatening words ring to someone who doesn’t believe in fairy tales like a ridiculous lake of fire where you can laugh and mock at all the people who disagreed with you. It’s a paranoid revenge fantasy, that’s all, and the sooner you realize that’s what it is the better off you’ll be.

          • No laughing or mocking from me. I feel quite sorry for you and I am very angry at the fact that Satan has such a stronghold on you. Say what you will but deep down inside you know the truth.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            I feel EXTREMELY sorry for anyone who takes perfectly reasonable conversation and sincerely believes it’s “demonic stupidity”. I stopped blaming Satan for things when I was about five years old and took responsibility for my own life, when are you going to do the same, and stop blaming things on monsters and bugaboos?

          • Your conversation is not reasonable.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Yes, and it’s just SO reasonable trying to talk to someone who believes I’ve been deceived by Satan. With literally any other human being it’s a difference of opinion, but with a fundamentalist zealot the blame goes to Satan. Every single time. And I am supposed to take that seriously.

          • The time IS coming when you will take it seriously.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Christopher Hitchens didn’t have a deathbed conversion, and I am not likely to have one either.

          • Then you will join him in Hell.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Your bloodlust has nothing to do with your God, stop putting your evil thoughts in his mouth.

          • I do not have a blood lust and neither does God.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            If you are hoping for people you disagree with to burn for eternity in a lake of fire, you are bloodthirsty.

          • What gave you the idea that I am hoping for anyone to burn for eternity?

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Well, how many times have you mentioned it now?

          • I am only repeating to you what God has already told you.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            No, you’re repeating what your religion has taught you God said. Why do you think so many people are not part of your religion?

          • 2 Timothy 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV)
            16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
            ===========
            Revelation 20New King James Version (NKJV)
            Satan Bound 1,000 Years
            20 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
            The Saints Reign with Christ 1,000 Years
            4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
            Satanic Rebellion Crushed
            7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
            The Great White Throne Judgment
            11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[c] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[d] 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Like I said, this is what your religion teaches and it’s the reason I want no part of it.

          • And like I said you will regret it because God is real and so is His Holy Word.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Which God, and how do you know the one you chose is the correct one and why does he want to kill me?

          • Revelation 20New King James Version (NKJV)
            Satan Bound 1,000 Years
            20 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
            The Saints Reign with Christ 1,000 Years
            4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
            Satanic Rebellion Crushed
            7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
            The Great White Throne Judgment
            11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[c] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[d] 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
            Footnotes:

          • Bob Johnson

            What about ritual cannibalism, such as the Eucharist?

          • I’m not Catholic. Ask one of them.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It shouldn’t matter. You should be able to answer since they are also Christians.

          • Thank you for your interest in this subject. The Catholic dogma of the Eucharist is not shared by the rest of Christianity. It is a Catholic belief only and I am not Catholic.

          • ppp777

            That statement can only come from a reprobate mind like yours .

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            How sad then that you consider the body of science to be reprobate.

          • TruthvLIes

            No one has said they are innate. Try some other red herring.

          • James E. McFaddin

            Michael said:
            “[A]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.”

            Doug Bristow said: “These people are perverse because their sexual orientation is not innate”

            It seems Doug is trying to say since their condition is not innate this makes them perverted and thus they not entitled to those rights. I just pointed out that religion, and national origin is not innate either.

            If you said Satan Worshipers are perverted (which some people believe they are) can you now discriminate against Wicans?

        • Recognizing_Truth

          I have no fear of man – (homo=”man” in Latin + phobos=”fear” in Greek)

          Also, the facts of the case clearly show that it is not THE PERSONS that were being denied service. It was turning down a specific job based on what the requirements of the job were. In each of these “cases”, the proprietors were not averse to, or denying selling anything they produced to, the persons per se. They rejected the jobs because of certain parameters, e.g. specific words to be included, the event where the product was to be used, etc. In no case has it been “we don’t serve gays” but “we can’t have our product be seen as explicit, implicit or tacit approval of activities that our established and recognized religion considers sinful”.

          • James E. McFaddin

            Exactly why it is wrong. They targeted the person because they were part of a protected group. These groups were specified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because bigots use them to create second class status for individuals.

            It’s sad to see bigots, and their supporters, now trying to circumvent this protection and still maintain a sense or morals.

          • Michael C

            They rejected the jobs because of certain parameters, e.g. specific words to be included, the event where the product was to be used, etc.

            This is incorrect.

            There was nothing about the design of the cake that the bakery objected to. The bakery objected to the fact that the customers were both women. This is a basic fact in this case.

          • And they are within their right to do so.

          • Michael C

            And they are within their right to do so.

            No, Doug Bristow. According to the law, stores and restaurants in Oregon aren’t permitted to refuse service on the basis of the sexual orientation of customers.

          • The CRA of 1964 does not agree with you.

          • Michael C

            The Kleins did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nobody said they did.

            They violated Oregon civil rights legislation.

          • Does it specifically spell out that a pervert is protected from denial of service?

          • Michael C

            Does it specifically spell out that a pervert is protected from denial of service?

            Doug, you may read the law yourself.

            “[A]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.”

          • Obviously sexual orientation is the key phrase and everyone’s sexual orientation is heterosexual.

          • Michael C

            Obviously sexual orientation is the key phrase and everyone’s sexual orientation is heterosexual.

            Okay, Doug Bristow. Okay.

          • Therefore no law was broken and it all amounts to malicious and prejudicial prosecution.

          • TruthvLIes

            Malicious is the right word judging by the 101 things in the list of deprivations the two leswbians suffered as a result of not getting their own way.

            As there must be a 100 cake makers they could have chosen to execute their order, they are nothing more than a couple of ratbags.

          • vreed lak72

            Doug Bristow completely owned because he’s too stupid to look up the law or read the case.

          • I don’t speak Splingo. Not smart enough to understand the grammatological aspects of the lingo.

          • TruthvLIes

            They did not refuse on the basis of their sexual orientation. They refused because their faith does not recognise same sex marriage.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            But they are allowed to refuse service based on the purpose or event the product will be used for:

            “Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings”

            The court decided to conflate the two – guilt by association – concluding basically that if the cake was refused because the purpose was “homosexual”, then the bakery was breaking the law by refusing to sell to “homosexuals”.

          • Michael C

            The court decided to conflate the two

            No. The state said that the Kleins violated their civil rights laws. The state has the ability to determine how their own laws are applied.

            The court simply affirmed the state’s position.

            If you don’t like the law, call your Oregon representative and request the law to be changed.

          • TruthvLIes

            Totally wrong as usual. I have followed this case since day one and it is very clear they did not want to give their approval of same sex marriage. It had nothing at all to do with who the customers were.

          • Michael C

            Refusal of service on the basis of a disapproval of gay relationships is considered the same as refusal of service on the basis of sexual orientation according to every civil rights commission and court to hear one of these cases.

          • TruthvLIes

            I have yet to find any court which proscribes relationships that are happy.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            “Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings”

            They sold to women all the time.

          • Michael C

            They sold to women all the time.

            Except when they didn’t. That’s what we’re talking about.

            A restaurant cant have a separate menu for white and black customers nor can they have a separate menu for gay and straight customers.

          • James E. McFaddin

            Homophobia does not mean what you think it does:
            ho·mo·pho·bi·a
            noun
            dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

        • TruthvLIes

          Another patronising comment. Homophobia never entered into the equation as neither of the Kleins were afraid of homosexuals evidenced by the fact that they served them in their shop.

          • James E. McFaddin

            Homophobia does not mean what you think it does:
            ho·mo·pho·bi·a
            noun
            dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

            And we are talking about a prejudice against certain people.

          • TruthvLIes

            Which the Kleins never had.

  • james blue

    I think a self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish, so disagree with the law to begin with. However if the store broke the law it should be fined. The couple do not deserve financial retribution as they suffered no financial loss.

    • James E. McFaddin

      What about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits public accommodations from refusing service to customers because of skin color, race, religion, sex, nationality, or any physical conditions a customer can’t prevent.

      Do you want to do away with that?

      • james blue

        Such a business would lose my custom, but yes. I wouldn’t shop in a store that refused service based on prejudice, but if they want to risk losing a sale to me they should have the right to do so.

        The civil rights act should apply to government, not the private sector. It was needed to prevent government laws compelling the private sector to discriminate such as compelling segregation and to ensure that all are equal when it comes to voting and law enforcement etc.

        I view it the same way as I view freedom of speech. I may disagree with what you say, I may find what you say and that you would say it repugnant, but you should have the right to say it. Believing you should have the right to do “X” doesn’t indicate approval of you doing it, before you go down that accusatory road.

        It may seem a cold stance, but like free speech, if we don’t protect vile unpopular speech we lose freedom of speech

        • James E. McFaddin

          It seems you are confusion “Private Sector” and “Private Business”. Private Sector refers to that part of the national economy that is not under direct government control. A Private Business (or Privately) is a business held by an individual, or group of individuals, in the Private Sector.

          For example Hobby Lobby is Privately held, that doesn’t mean they can refuse to hire Blacks, Muslims or Women. The Civil Rights act of 1964 forbids that.

          I think you are referring to Private clubs or organizations like the KKK that can keep blacks out or Men only country Clubs; stuff like that.

          • james blue

            I’m well aware of what I mean and it’s not your definition. If it’s not specifically government owned or run it’s the private sector, that includes businesses whether owned by an individual or by shareholders.

            I know what the civil rights act says, I am disagreeing with some of it. This is why I use words such as “should be able to” and not “Are able to”.

            I’m not saying government has no place making rules and regulation regarding businesses, but they should be limited to health and safety, environment, contract laws and legal trade etc. Not social dictates.

          • James E. McFaddin

            Very well, maybe I did misunderstand you. Tell me what part of the Civil Right Act you disagree with. The part that you must hire Blacks or people regardless of their sex? Do you want the protected classes deleted?

            Do you realize if these “social dictates” are deleted then social progress would grind to a halt? How can a country founded upon freedom and justice for all, or better yet, how can that country secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity unless that country, not just expect, but demand that all be treated equally and fairly?

            Tell me how your vision for America would accomplish these ideals?

          • james blue

            Please don’t confuse disagreement with the tactics with disagreeing with the intention. I think I’ve already answered that question a couple of times here now. My comment history is open to public view, I’m a libertarian if that helps you with context.

          • James E. McFaddin

            You said: “I’m not saying government has no place making rules and regulation regarding businesses”. I know you made the exceptions of health safety… and that I understand. So I took that to mean you don’t want the government to dictate to businesses, that server the public, that they must server Black people, women, homosexuals, or just about any group that you have an affinity to.

            Nonetheless I’ll read thru your past comments and see if you really mean businesses should be allowed to discriminate against group or just gay couples.

          • Michael C

            If I’m not mistaken, james blue believes that stores and restaurants should be able to refuse service to black people or Jewish people if that’s what they want. This doesn’t mean that he believes that it’s acceptable, it just means that he believes the market should dictate the penalties of such an action, not the government.

          • James E. McFaddin

            I thinks that what he means also. However as I asked “how can that country (America) secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity unless that country, not just expect, but demand that all be treated equally and fairly?”

            Or laws reflect our morals. Murder is against the law, stealing is against the law…. so bigotry should be illegal because it is not reflective of America’s moral codes.

          • Michael C

            Or laws reflect our morals.

            I disagree. I think our laws safeguard our personal rights. In the case of civil rights laws, the notion of equal access to public life is considered a right.

          • James E. McFaddin

            I have to reflect on that, but i do agree “our laws safeguard our personal right.”

            Two consecutive post with reflect 🙂

          • james blue

            How do you do that quote bar thing?

          • Michael C

            Quote goes here.

            Without the spaces around the angle brackets it becomes…

            Quote goes here.

            I add italics to further differentiate the text.

            Quote goes here.

            Without the spaces it becomes…

            Quote goes here.

          • james blue

            Thanks. I figured out bold and italic some time back, but never felt it indicated I was quoting because of the amount of people who would reply as if it was my stance.

          • james blue

            How is forcing people to violate the personal beliefs they live by creating equality? The ONLY way all could be treated equally is through voluntary action. Compelling may produce the desired appearance, but somebody will be having their “values” violated. All you are doing is choosing which person loses.

            It is up to us to make the sacrifices in life in order to live by our faith, not have others make accommodations for us. If this means certain jobs are not suited to us, so be it, but how can someone live by their faith if we make it impossible for them to run their own business by it?

            If you find yourself morally conflicted with the business of your employer that’s your problem, not his, While it’s nice that most employers would voluntarily, they shouldn’t be forced to accommodate your issues. But when it IS your company you should be free to operate it by your own values, whatever they may be. (obviously with the pre mentioned health and safety etc. limits)

          • james blue

            it’s like you have powers to see into other beings.

          • Michael C

            Hehe. I try to understand things before determining whether or not I disagree with them.

          • james blue

            I never expect you to actually agree with me, but I do respect your apparent ability to understand or failing that the effort you apparently put in to try to.

            Now please don’t try to trap me into being nice again, I only have maybe one or two in me each year and I save them for summer. It’s winter and I’m old, taking too many showers washing it off this time of year will give me pneumonia.

          • james blue

            Sorry for the delayed reply, it got late in the evening.

            I thought I had put it clear enough- a private business should be able to do or refuse to do business with whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish– I’m not sure what isn’t clear about that. I’ve said I wouldn’t approve, but I didn’t carve out exceptions.

            I did use the words “self employed” originally because I don’t extend it to employed people. If you are employed you should do the business of your employer. A self employed Christian wedding photographer should be allowed to refuse to do gay weddings, but if said Christian was employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. His employer should not be forced by law to make accommodations for his faith.
            Specifically to the bakers, if they were employed they should bake the cake or quit, but if we make it so that they have to bake it when they are self employed then we make it impossible for people to live by their faith.

    • TruthvLIes

      Going out of business is not suffering financial loss!! What a weird understanding you have of life.

      • james blue

        Firstly the bakers were not forced to close their business by this lawsuit, They either chose to do so or the market wasn’t supporting them.

        Secondly the couple I was speaking of not deserving financial retribution as they suffered no financial loss would be the gay couple…You know…the ones who were awarded compensation after suing…

  • Dixieland Insanity

    I’m so tired of reading about how tolerance should be given to the LGBTQ community. They demand tolerance of their life choices while condemning others for their own. I hope this is appealed and that the bakers prevail.

    • GetSmarties

      They broke the law. Why should they prevail?

      • Dixieland Insanity

        This took place in 2013 – two years prior to the Supreme Court ruling for same sex marriage. There was also a voter enacted ban on same sex marriage in Oregon in 2013. How did the business break the law as it stood at that point in time as opposed to now?

        • Michael C

          It doesn’t matter whether or not the couple’s marriage was legally recognized by the state at the time the product was requested. That’s irrelevant.

          Marriage laws and civil rights laws are different laws. They’re not the same laws.

          Even though these couples’ marriages weren’t legally recognized in their state, the state still prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Further, these couple’s were legally married according to the federal government (but that doesn’t have any bearing on civil rights laws either).

      • TruthvLIes

        The two lesbians broke the law with this hate crime so why should they prevail?

      • ppp777

        You sanctimonious reprobate , you obviously have no perception of right or wrong , justice and injustice or how perverted laws exist now or in the past , but to hell with right or wrong as long as reprobates like you get their way .

    • Blake Paine

      No one made this business offer wedding cakes to the public but once they did they had to sell them respecting the customer’s civil rights. They knew this before they made the offer.

  • Michael C

    According to civil rights laws, if there is a product that a store willingly sells to the general public, the store cannot refuse to sell that product on the basis of the customer’s religion, race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, etc. In this case, the customers requested a product no different than what the business would willingly sell to other customers. The business refused service to the customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. This is illegal. The outcome is no different than if the business had refused service because the customer is Christian.

    Christians have been rewarded sums even larger than this in religious discrimination cases.

    Last time I checked, over half a million dollars had been donated to the Kleins through GoFundMe and Continue to Give campaigns. That was over a year ago. Continue to Give continues to collect donations for the Kleins although they no longer report how much has been collected. This half a million dollars + doesn’t include the amount that has been collected by Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse. That organization doesn’t seem to report how much has been gifted to the Kleins.

    • TruthvLIes

      No they didn’t. If they did, they would have refused to serve them on the numerous other times they purchased goods at the shop. The Kleins have made it very clear they DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS.

      Their refusal was based on their conviction that same sex marriage was not acceptable to God so they refused to make a cake celebrating it. Who was asking for the cake to be made was irrelevant.

      If a heterosexual person had asked for the same they would have refused so sexual orientation is a furphy.

      • Michael C

        The Kleins have made it very clear they DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS AND LESBIANS.

        …except for when they do. It doesn’t matter that they mostly don’t refuse service to gay customers.

        • TruthvLIes

          So tell me Mr. know it all, how many times have the Kleins refused service to anyone because they were homosexual or lesbian?

          • James E. McFaddin

            Probably never discriminated against people that have been married multiple times and numerous other groups. This does not mean that can discriminate against people of the same sex getting marriage.

          • TruthvLIes

            Answer the question James. The fact that you didn’t must mean that you can’t or are trying to avoid doing so.

            And they did not discriminate against people of the same sex getting married. As far as they were concerned the two lesbians were free to go and get married if that is what they wanted to do.

            All they said was leave us out of it.

          • Michael C

            how many times have the Kleins refused service to anyone because they were homosexual or lesbian?

            According to the state of Oregon, at least once.

            It doesn’t matter if they served gay customers a thousand times in the past. Civil rights laws prohibit discrimination, even if it’s just once or just relating to one particular product. The customer requested a product no different than what the business would willingly sell to a straight customer. They ordered something off the menu and were refused.

          • TruthvLIes

            Wrong as usual. At no time did they refuse service because someone was a homosexual or a lesbian. That has been made abundantly clear.

            Regardless of who ordered the cake (it could have been the President himself) they refused the order and would have refused the order because they believed marriage was between a man and a woman.

            The Kleins are a wonderful example of christians who will not bow the knee to secular government if it conflicts with their christian faith.

            For the Kleins, it is God who will judge them and it is very clear they will not be found wanting at the judgment seat of Christ.

        • Reason2012

          …except for when they do. It doesn’t matter that they mostly don’t refuse service to gay customers.

          False, Michael. They would have denied that request even if a heterosexual asked them, even if a Christian asked them, because it was support of an anti-Christian ACT. You’re not being honest, Michael.

          • TruthvLIes

            Honesty is not michaels best policy. He comes on here and spews out half truths and lies and hopes that no one will notice so he can get away with muddying the waters.

          • Michael C

            You’re not being honest, Michael.

            Refusing to sell a customer a wedding cake for an interfaith marriage because the business owner disagrees with interfaith relationships is discrimination on the basis of religion. Are you arguing with this fact?

            Refusing to sell a customer a wedding cake for an interracial marriage because the business owner disagrees with interracial relationships is discrimination on the basis of race. Are you arguing with this fact?

            Refusing to sell a customer a wedding cake for a gay marriage because the business owner disagrees with gay relationships is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

            Further, this isn’t your law. It’s Oregon’s law. Oregon gets to decide how their law is applied. Not you. .

          • Reason2012

            Refusing to sell a customer a wedding cake for an interfaith marriage because the business owner disagrees with interfaith relationships is discrimination on the basis of religion. Are you arguing with this fact?

            “Disagrees” you say? Notice how you dishonestly pretend it’s only “disagrees”. No, Michael, if a request by customer to support an ACT that would violate a business owner’s religious beliefs would be the discrimination, Michael. Far more than just “disagrees” with.

            So when it’s the customer who is denied the request, you call it “discrimination on the basis of religion” – when the business owner’s religious beliefs are violated, you try to call it “disagree with” – you’re not being honest, Michael.

            Refusing to sell a customer a wedding cake for a gay marriage because the business owner disagrees with gay relationships is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

            No, he doesn’t disagree with the “gay relationship” – he disagrees with being forced to support an anti-Christian ACT, which would be a violation of his religious beliefs. They’re fine to go get married all they wish and get a cake – just cannot force Christians to support anti-Christian acts.

            Further, this isn’t your law. It’s Oregon’s law. Oregon gets to decide how their law is applied. Not you. .

            Wrong. This country is For The People, By The People, not for anti-Christ activists who force their will upon everyone else, violating their rights to not participate in anti-Christian acts, and making them criminals if they do not comply.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If a business owner (or anyone else, like, say, a county clerk….) finds that following the law is going to put them in a position where they feel their religious beliefs are violated, they should find another line of work.

            This country is For The People, By The People

            Indeed….just remember that The People are increasingly in favor of same-sex marriage, and increasingly non-religious.

            Hmm…..well, hang on, let me look at this a different way, though. Let’s say there was a case like this where a baker refused to sell a cake to an interracial couple because he sincerely felt it went against his religious beliefs. I suppose you’d be on the baker’s side on that one? After all, an interracial marriage, at least in his eyes, is an act against his religion, right? If I’m wrong, what’s the difference between that and the Oregon situation? (Notice I’m not saying what religion I’m talking about in my hypothetical example there. Doesn’t matter for this argument.)

          • Reason2012

            If a business owner (or anyone else, like, say, a county clerk….) finds that following the law is going to put them in a position where they feel their religious beliefs are violated, they should find another line of work.

            Yes, if we lived in a country run by fascism, that would be true. But business owners are not required to support acts that violate their religious beliefs, neither are black people required to support acts that violate their race. But fascists would come along and claim “if black people find that following the law is going to put them in a position where they feel their race is violated, they should find another work” and everyone would realize that’s impossible as people are protected against anti-race bigotry and they’re also protected against anti-religious bigotry.

            Let’s say there was a case like this where a baker refused to sell a cake to an interracial couple because he sincerely felt it went against his religious beliefs. I suppose you’d be on the baker’s side on that one?

            It’s not about whoyou are selling the cake to, which activists dishonestly twist it into – it’s about the act the cake would be used for no matter who made the request.

            So if it was a violation of a person’s religious beliefs to sell a cake to support the act of marriage of people of differing races, or support the act of a man marrying a 17 year old, or support the act of an adulterous marriage, and so on, then yes it’s his or her right to refuse to support that act to 100% of the world that asked for it..

            Let’s say there was a case like this where a black baker refused to sell a cake requested for an anti-black racist event, I suppose you’d be on the buyer’s side who is seeking this bigoted request?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So if it was a violation of a person’s religious beliefs to sell a cake to support the act of marriage of people of differing races, or support the act of a man marrying a 17 year old, or support the act
            of an adulterous marriage, and so on, then yes it’s his or her right to
            refuse to support that act, to all 100% of people in the world that
            asked for it..

            OK, so I guess you would be on the baker’s side in that example I gave? Well, I suppose at least you’re consistent. The Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination in public accommodations based on race….and I don’t see how you could say the example I gave is anything but that. Just like the Oregon case is discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is illegal in that state. They’d sell the same exact cake for a opposite-sex wedding, but not for a same-sex wedding? Yeah, that’s discrimination due to sexual orientation.

            Also, it’s kinda beside the whole point, but in most states, 17-year-olds can marry with parental consent.

            Let’s say there was a case like this where a black baker refused to sell
            a cake requested for an anti-black racist event, even though he has no
            problem serving people who are not black: I suppose you’d be on the
            buyer’s side who is seeking this bigoted request?

            If the cake’s like any other cake, meaning it doesn’t have “KKK All the Way” or something on it, then yes. (Kinda like how a “gay wedding cake” is just like any other wedding cake, ya know…)

            I guess I’m saying I don’t think selling something to someone is endorsement of whatever they intend to do with it.

          • Reason2012

            The Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination in public accommodations based on race..

            He’s denying that request to 100% of his customers because the act they’re asking him to support would be against his religious beliefs, so he did not discriminate against his customers because of their race.

            If the cake’s like any other cake, meaning it doesn’t have “KKK All the Way” or something on it, then yes.

            So much for your claim to be against discrimination based upon race – so you believe black business owners can be bullied by racist customers forcing them to bake cakes to support racist acts, as long as there’e no writing on the cake. No, asking any baker to support racist acts is against the law, and forcing people to support anti-religious bigotry, violating their religious beliefs, is also against the law.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He’s denying that request to 100% of his customers because the act they’re asking him to support would be against his religious beliefs,

            He would be denying that service to his customers based on the race of who’s having the wedding, regardless of who’s actually buying the cake. So, racial discrimination. Basically, what it comes down to is, your religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, don’t give you permission to break the law, which is clear. I mean, I’m not a legal expert here, but I’m guessing most any court in this country would see it that way.

            Freedom of religion is like any other right: It’s not an absolute right that takes precedence over all others.

          • Reason2012

            He would be denying that service to his customers based on the race of who’s having the wedding, regardless of who’s actually buying the cake.

            False. If it was because of the race, he wouldn’t sell it to any black person who’s getting married, or any white person who is getting married. It’s because of the act of an interracial marriage, which includes both a white person and a black person, and the request would be denied of 100% of people in the world who asked it if a person found that to be against their religious beliefs, so no individual group is being discriminated against.

            Meanwhile no one has that religious belief, so your attempt to deflect and go off on a tangent fails on that grounds as well.

            Take care.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It would be because of the race of the people having the wedding. If they were both white, for example, the person against interracial marriage wouldn’t have a problem. By definition, it’s about race.

            Meanwhile no one has that religious belief

            For one thing, I said from the start it was a hypothetical question. It’s beside the point if people actually have that belief or not. And anyway, plenty of Christians used to hold that as a religious belief, and I bet you could still find at least a few who do. It’s not “deflecting” or “a tangent”, it’s the SAME situation, I just changed same-sex marriage to an interracial one.

            Take care.

            What, giving up already?

          • Nick Halflinger

            “if people actually have that belief”

            That would be my uncle.
            Oh and please don’t get him started on women shopping, downtown, in broad daylight, wearing pants.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’d like to believe people like that don’t exist anymore, but, they are out there.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t know if you’re responding to me any more, but I’ll just add a few more things I thought of, anyway.

            If I’m getting this right, you’re saying it’s not about discriminating against people, but rather, it’s refusing to “support acts” that violate one’s belief…no matter what those acts are. First of all, I think that’s an interpretation of freedom of religion that no court would use. If the courts saw things that way, quite a lot of cases would have gone the other way over the years. Secondly, if businesses can choose who they serve and who they won’t, based on who those people are…that’s just “separate but equal”, isn’t it? Especially how I hear some people put it, when they say things like “they could have gone to some other bakery” and so forth.

          • TruthvLIes

            I am not sure you understand basic logic. This thread is not about interracial marriage so your comparison is irrelevant.

            They did not refuse to make a wedding cake for two people who were happy.

          • ppp777

            Who is ” Oregon ” , don’t you have any discernment at all , are you completely gone ? , have you been given over to a reprobate mind ?

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Oregon anti-discrimination statutes do not allow for businesses to carve out a portion of their products or services as only for ‘deserving’ customers.

          • Reason2012

            Oregon anti-discrimination statutes do not allow for businesses to carve out a portion of their products or services as only for ‘deserving’ customers.

            A cake that is used for an anti-Christian act would be denied to 100% of their customers, including heterosexuals and Christians, so no particular customer is being discriminated against with this religious belief.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            There is nothing ‘anti-Christian’ about a same-sex wedding.

          • Reason2012

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

            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.

            Even Jesus points out marriage is a man and a woman.

            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!

          • TruthvLIes

            Do you specialise in putting your foot in it every time you open your mouth because that seems to be the case?

            Can you show where it says on the bible that God approves of two homosexuals marrying?

          • TruthvLIes

            I am beginning to wonder if you are as thick as two short planks.

            As has been said numerous times these two lesbians and other homosexuals were regular customer of the Kleins so it was patently clear that they did not single them out as undeserving customers.

            If that is the best you can do, better that you forgo commenting and take a course in how to frame intelligent comment.

      • James E. McFaddin

        Their convictions are causing them to discriminate. Must the law now ignore behavior because of someone’s conviction.

        Leviticus 15:19: When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

        Are you now allowed to turn away women on their period?

        Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

        Are you now allowed to kill people you are convinced are witches?

        I could go on with numerous other religious convictions one can have to demonstrate the brutality of such a position. America is secular nation, which means religion, of any sort, play no part in our laws.

        • TruthvLIes

          Women with periods and witches have nothing at all to do with the case in question. It is just another red herring to muddy the waters.

        • ppp777

          You are now satans nation , and you will end up where he will end up .

      • Reason2012

        Michael knows this, but continues to post the lie that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

        • TruthvLIes

          His motto seems to be not to ruin a good story by telling the truth.

    • Reason2012

      f there is a product that a store willingly sells to the general public, the store cannot refuse to sell that product on the basis of the customer’s religion, race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

      You know that’s false, Michael, as it’s public knowledge they had no problem serving 100% of homosexuals. They issue is they were being asked to bake a cake to support an anti-Christian ACT, which they would have denied to 100% of their customers, even heterosexuals, even Christians. They sell cakes, but they have the right to refuse to make one of those cakes for anti-Christian ACTS.

      Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business support the anti-black acts like a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering or a “proKKK” gathering? Would a black printer who has no problem serving white people have to make printings to support anti-black act, like a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering? Does a mulsim baker who has no problem selling cakes to non-mulsim people have to use his business support the anti-muslim acts like a “lets draw muhammad” party?

      No. Those requests would be denied even if asked by another black person or another muslim.

      The only bigots in such a case are those who sought this black baker or black printer out to support this ACT. And so it goes with homosexual activists who seek out Christian bakers and Christian business owners to force them to support such anti-Christian acts no matter if it’s a homosexual who makes the request or not, whether a Christian makes the request or not, more so when such people have no problem serving those who declare they’re into homosexuality. 100% of their customers would be denied this request. They’d also be denied a request for a polygamous wedding cake.

      America is waking up to the deception from homosexual activists, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and transgender bathrooms is: the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.

      And keep in mind, these same homosexual activists hate LGBT people. When 50 of them were_killed in Orlando, these same activists jumped to the defense of_islam as the “religion of peace”, while not saying a word to defend those who were_killed, but instead keep going after those “evil” Christians for not violating their Christian faith and perform anti-Christian acts.

      Keep in mind they are anti-Christian activists, not LGBT people in general, but activists that have proven they hate LGBT people and are just using them to push this anti-Christian agenda.

      • Michael C

        They sell cakes, but they have the right to refuse to make one of those cakes for anti-Christian ACTS.

        If weddings are “anti-Christian acts,” the bakery can choose not to sell wedding cakes.

        • Reason2012

          If weddings are “anti-Christian acts,” the bakery can choose not to sell wedding cakes.

          Yes, racists would likewise say “If ‘blacks are stupid’ parties are ‘anti-black acts’, the black backer can choose not to sell party cakes”.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Racists are not a protected class.

          • ppp777

            Perverts are

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It always boils down to name-calling with you. Why is that? Why can’t you have a reasonable conversation without calling people perverts?

        • TruthvLIes

          Wrong again as usual. They never at any time have said that weddings are anti christian acts.

          They have made it very clear that God’s way is marriage between a man and a woman. All other expressions are blasphemy.

          The Kleins are to be commended because they have chosen God’s way even though it has cost them dearly.

          Jesus said if they hate me they will hate you. The two lesbians involved in ruining the Klein’s life are obviously operation out of hate for christians who do not bow the knee to homosexual demands.

          If they weren’t they would have just said OK and gone to another cake maker.

  • TruthvLIes

    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.”

    Wow! those lesbians are a complete and utter emotional basket case. They don’t need financial damages, they need to be referred to a mental facility before they go totally round the bend.

    If not getting their cake made had such a negative affect on them, how on earth did they cope with life up to this point?

    And seizing the Kleins personal bank accounts is a good sign we are heading for a police state that is controlled by homosexuals and lesbians.

    • James E. McFaddin

      Yeah, people being discriminated against and treated like second class citizens are just a bunch of p&^^%$#.

      • Reason2012

        They have no problem serving those who want to pronounce they’re into homosexuality, James. The issue is they were denying a request to support anti-Christian acts, which they would have denied even if the person requesting it was not into homosexuality, even if the person requesting it was Christian.

        • James E. McFaddin

          Regardless of how you genuflect and try to rationalize their behavior it still amounts to homophobic bigotry. Trying to mask their behavior by concocting some dubious work around does very little to hide what they are doing.

          They are denying Homosexuals the same rights and privileges that is afforded to others. Similarly they could claim they’re not racist, but if a mixed race couple walks in and she refuses to serve them because the ‘act’ is against their conviction that people should not be unequally yolked, that’s discriminatory.

          • TruthvLIes

            Total rubbish. We are not talking about a mixed race marriage and for your information there is nothing in the bible that forbids mixed race marriage so stop trying to muddy the waters to score points.

          • James E. McFaddin

            Christians use all kinds of scriptures to justify their bigotry, and as I pointed out if they wanted to use “unequally yolked”, which is in the bible, they can, there is nothing to stop them.

            Reason2012 said:
            The issue is they were denying a request to support anti-Christian acts.

            My example was to show that this ad-hock statements doesn’t hold water. It would be an ‘anti-Christian act’ to marry not only mixed race couples, but those with different nationalities as well, using his reasoning.

          • TruthvLIes

            As I said, there is nothing in scripture that forbids mixed race marriage and the subject matter is not mixed race marriage so stop trying to foist red herrings on me.

            Adn atheists use all sorts of pathetic justifications to support their bigotry against anything christian.

            Just to show how true what I said is, not wanting to give credence to same sex marriage is not ad-hoc, it is a core belief.

            And the rest of your comment is rubbish and another red herring.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Christian Identity folks believe only white people are descended from Adam. All other races were created with the ‘beasts’ and are thus not Children of God. They vehemently preach strict racial segregation. They even cite scripture to support their faith.

            I’d point you to one of their web sites, but I find such filth disgusting, as I’m sure you do.

          • Bob Johnson

            Or start with Bishop of Vermont John Henry Hopkins’ pamphlet “Biblical view of slavery”

          • TruthvLIes

            I have been involved in a lot of churches having lived on three continents and not one of them have believed that only white people are descendants of Adam.

            Not one single church I have been involved in preached segregation.

            In my last church the congregation was mainly blacks and Asians. The whites were in a minority. the leader of the church was a Maori.

            “One of their websites…” How pathetic. How many churches are there in the world and how many of them have websites that preach segregation?

            If you want to make a case you will have to do better than that.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Tell that to the folks who believe in Christian Identity Theology.

          • TruthvLIes

            I don’t need to as they are not the ones that are making an enormous mountain out of a tiny molehill.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            Red herring. This is not an issue in the case being discussed.

            The case being discussed is being adjudicated unfairly by conflating the refusal of a business to sell a product for a PURPOSE (which is legal) and refusal to sell a product to a person protected under the CRA (which is illegal).

          • Reason2012

            No true James. No more than a black baker is “denying white people the same rights and privileges that is afforded to others” when he denies the request by anyone to make a cake he sells for a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering. This black baker has no problem serving white people, but will not support anti-black acts with his business. Likewise this Christian baker has no problem serving those into homosexuality, but will not support anti-Christian acts with his business. In both cases the bigots with a phobia are the ones that sought out said bakers to begin with.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            @Reason2012:disqus is correct and both you and the court are wrong.

            No, it doesn’t change the fact that the baker has to pay the fines the court assigned.

            But it is important to recognize that the facts of the case do not actually demonstrate discrimination against a person, but demonstrate the business’ exercise of their right to refuse to provide product for a specific purpose.

        • TruthvLIes

          Those that oppose the truth specialise in red herrings and spin.

      • TruthvLIes

        Who are you referring to?

        • James E. McFaddin

          It was a sarcastic agreement to your comment.

          • TruthvLIes

            As sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I avoid it assiduously.

          • James E. McFaddin

            Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit only to those who have never mastered the art, and those who always fall victim to it. – Adam Pemberton, Sylvania

          • TruthvLIes

            Who is Adam Pemberton? I have never heard of him.

      • Recognizing_Truth

        Nobody actually said that. But go ahead and believe it if you want.

        However most of the emotional damage such as “resumption of smoking habit”, “loss of appetite”, “uncertainty”, “shock” have so many causes and are common for virtually all people in life whenever something less than ideal happens. They should not be considered as offenses for which damages are due.

        Oh, and “mental rape” is not a thing that could even be construed as possible when somebody says “No” when you want something.

        It is absolutely ludicrous to allow the assignment of such “emotional damage” to the act of not getting a cake.

        • TruthvLIes

          it seems that when lesbians get on the bandwagon of me, myself and I, they develop an inordinate gift of exaggeration.

  • Reason2012

    Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business support the anti-black acts like a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering or a “proKKK” gathering? Would a black printer who has no problem serving white people have to make printings to support anti-black act, like a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering? Does a mulsim baker who has no problem selling cakes to non-mulsim people have to use his business support the anti-muslim acts like a “lets draw muhammad” party?

    No. Those requests would be denied even if asked by another black person or another muslim.

    The only bigots in such a case are those who sought this black baker or black printer out to support this ACT. And so it goes with homosexual activists who seek out Christian bakers and Christian business owners to force them to support such anti-Christian acts no matter if it’s a homosexual who makes the request or not, whether a Christian makes the request or not, more so when such people have no problem serving those who declare they’re into homosexuality. 100% of their customers would be denied this request. They’d also be denied a request for a polygamous wedding cake.

    America is waking up to the deception from homosexual activists, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and transgender bathrooms is: the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.

    And keep in mind, these same homosexual activists hate LGBT people. When 50 of them were_killed in Orlando, these same activists jumped to the defense of_islam as the “religion of peace”, while not saying a word to defend those who were_killed, but instead keep going after those “evil” Christians for not violating their Christian faith and perform anti-Christian acts.

    Keep in mind they are anti-Christian activists, not LGBT people in general, but activists that have proven they hate LGBT people and are just using them to push this anti-Christian agenda.

    • Michael C

      The bakery has wedding cakes on the menu. The customer requested a product off the menu. If the business owner feels that weddings are (or sometimes can be) considered “anti-Christian acts,” the bakery can choose not to have wedding cakes on the menu.

      Saying that one customer’s wedding is just a wedding and another customer’s wedding is an “anti-Christian act” is a bit of a stretch and you’ll find wouldn’t hold up in court.

      • Reason2012

        The bakery has wedding cakes on the menu. The customer requested a product off the menu. If the business owner feels that weddings are (or sometimes can be) considered “anti-Christian acts,” the bakery can choose not to have wedding cakes on the menu.

        Yes, and black bakers have “cakes on the menu”. And if a “customer requested a product off the menu” for an anti-black ACTs, they have the right to deny that bigoted request, instead of caving to the bigoted demand of “If the black baker feels that some uses of his cakes are considered anti-Black, he can choose to not sell cakes on his menu”

        So do you similarly demand that a black baker who has cakes on his menu must be forced to sell cakes in support of racist acts (like a “we do not like blacks” meeting) or he needs to no longer sell cakes? That would be racist, Michael, right next to anti-Christian bigotry of demanding Christian bakers to use their products for anti-Christian ACTS, those acts being clear violation of his religious beliefs to boot.

        • Tangent002 ✓

          Racists aren’t a protected class.

          • Reason2012

            Neither are anti-Christian bigots.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Sweet Cakes by Melissa didn’t turn down business from anti-Christian bigots, she refused to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple.

          • Reason2012

            No, she’d refuse that anti-Christian request no matter who made it: Christian or not, into homosexuality or not. Just like a black baker would refuse a anti-black request even if other blacks made it, and it would be his right to do so.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Not all denominations of Christianity condemn same-sex weddings. Also, marriage is a civil contract, religion is not relevant.

          • TruthvLIes

            More foot in mouth comment.

            One. We are not talking about all denominations. We are talking about the Kleins conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.

            Two. For a christian, marriage is not a civil contract no more than baptism is. They make their vows before God, not a civil celebrant.

            Three. Marriage is a christian and a civil contract and the people getting married choose which one they want.

            Do you have any more ideological claptrap to spout.

          • Blake Paine

            Correct. They marketed to the public, far too late to refuse a customer because of their beliefs after they walk in the door.

            Either they sell wedding cakes to the public while respecting their civil rights or they shouldn’t offer them to the public at all.

            Pick one.

          • ppp777

            Real tolerance in action , you have taught me a lot , well done .

          • Blake Paine

            Your welcome. It is the business owner that has acted without tolerance or respect for the customer’s civil rights. If they feel they can’t sell as the law requires public offerings there are multiple ways they can operate their business consistent with their beliefs AND respect the rights of others but they choose not to do so.

            Can’t sell something to the public and respect their civil rights then:

            1) Don’t offer that something to the public
            2) Offer that something for sale to a private group of the ‘right’ members.

            Simple, legal, and respectful of others.

            But advertise to everyone to come buy something and then refuse a customer because their beliefs are not the same as the sellers? UnAmerican and illegal and intolerant of the customer’s constitutional right to not share those beliefs.

          • ppp777

            You obviously didn’t get the subtlety of my post .

          • Blake Paine

            Oh I realized you were probably attempting sarcasm and the irony of you missing the intolerance of the business owner made it very funny, just not in the way you probably intended.

            Again who would invite the public if they had no intention of respecting their civil rights?

          • ppp777

            Its called drawing the line , which is reasonable to any level headed person [ in the past anyway ] , in this case when a bible believing Christian is asked to promote something they know is clearly wrong [ and the reprobates that asked it to be done know this only too well ] , that is when they clearly have to draw the line , very reasonable to a level headed person [ but not to a reprobate ] , the secular term for a reprobate is a psychopath , they are one of the same ” Know thy enemy ” , very wise words .

          • Blake Paine

            And again you ignore the reasonable solution, don’t offer to sell something to the public that their beliefs won’t let them sell legally.

            ‘Reprobates’ would be those that think they can put their beliefs above the customer’s.

            Don’t invite the public if you can’t deal with them while respecting their civil rights is the ‘non-reprobate’ solution.

          • TruthvLIes

            Shows you how desperate the anti christian bigots are when they descend into comment like anti-christian bigots to present their case. Seems they are running out of ideas to present a plausible case.

          • Blake Paine

            You are mistaken, if a black bakery sells purple iced chocolate cake cupcakes to the public than anyone can buy them and serve them for events regardless of the owner’s beliefs.

            I of course like this case since the online wedding cake gallery showed a cake with witches and demons on it for a halloween themed wedding cake. Seems the hypocrisy is strong in these owners.

          • NCOriolesFan

            lesbian couple = the REAL anti-Christian bigots.

          • Tangent002 ✓

            Several Christian denominations have no problem at all with same-sex marriage, so your assertion that lesbians are ‘anti-Christian’ is unfounded.

            Two lesbians getting married is not even ‘anti-straight-marriage’. It’s just two people engaging in a civil contract on an equal basis.

          • ppp777

            He said ” antichristian ” not anti professing Christian , there is a difference and a big one , and there is no such thing as a marriage outside of male and female , it is a perversion from the pits of hell and will destroy society .

          • TruthvLIes

            It is very clear that homosexual bigots are a protected species.

            And it is very clear that on the back of legalising same sex marriage the homosexual bigots are going to run riot through society and d all they can to make everyone bow the knee to the new government of homosexuality.

      • TruthvLIes

        The only court that matters to a dedicated christian which is what the Kleins are, is God’s court and he has made it clear he doesn’t expect us to be involved in the machinations of secular thinking.

        He has instructed us how to deal with such issues and the Kleins are to be commended for not caving into secular thinking that defies the ways and will of God.

  • Nidalap

    If one looked back into 1930’s German history, they’d likely see similar rulings by the judges there against the Jewish citizens…

    • Michael C

      If one looked back into 1930’s German history, they’d likely see similar rulings by the judges there against the Jewish citizens…

      We don’t have to “if” and “likely” with Holocaust history. If you’re going to invoke the atrocities of the Holocaust, cite your examples. If you’re just trying to be shocking, please don’t use the extermination of millions of Jews as a means of being controversial.

      • james blue

        While I have no idea where Nidalap’s mind is with that comment, is it possible to compare tactics without concluding that the final intentions are the same?
        There is a difference between pointing out the use of similar tactics for nefarious purposes and saying someone is trying to achieve the same thing.

        Why is comparing tactics the same as saying Voldermort?

        • Michael C

          Nidalap appears to be attempting to claim that lgbt inclusive civil rights laws are a stepping stone to a Christian Holocaust.

          This is hyperbole I have no interest in entertaining absent a cogent argument.

          There is a difference between pointing out the use of similar tactics…

          Nidalap hasn’t actually pointed out the use of similar tactics.

          • james blue

            Okay, but I wasn’t asking about his comment. I even started saying I had no idea where his mind was.

          • Michael C

            I think any time you’re drawing similarities between actions, you’re automatically acknowledging the probability of a similar outcome, regardless the intent of the actions.

          • james blue

            Are you talking success when you say outcome? trump is waging a campaign to discredit the press, this is something the nazis did. Doesn’t mean trump wants to exterminate all Jews or make him a nazi does it?

            There are stupid nazi comparisons, but there is also this tendency to shut any observation down instantly. The saying is that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. If we reflexively shut down any observation we will find ourselves regretting it. This is not hyperbole, I’m not suggesting that we are heading towards a nazi state, but I see a lot of worrying tactics.

            What I’m saying is that if you use a hitler tactic, a putin tactic or a Ghandi tactic it doesn’t make you those people, it’s a tactic, not a philosophy.

          • Michael C

            Ahh, I understand what you’re getting at. The media demonization example perfectly illustrates your point. When I say outcome, I only mean outcome, not success.

            While I don’t think Trump is cognitively attempting to create a functioning fascist state, the effects of discrediting a critical free press are the same as if an actual intent existed.

            Using a nazi tactic doesn’t make a person a nazi but the outcome is the same regardless.

          • ppp777

            Let this bit of scripture and history etch into your head [ if you have any wisdom at all ] , ” There is nothing new under the sun ” .

      • Nidalap

        I didn’t invoke the atrocities of the Holocaust. I invoked the events leading up to that point.
        Wasn’t too terribly shocking at that point, now was it?

        • Michael C

          Okay, how is this at all similar to the events that lead up to the Holocaust. Please be specific.

          • Reason2012

            It’s basic history, Michael. Go read up on what those who hated Jewish people did to them up until the war and the eventually genocide.

          • Michael C

            It’s basic history, Michael. Go read up on what those who hated Jewish people did to them up until the war and the eventually genocide.

            Leading up to the Holocaust, the Germans required Jewish business owners to obey the same non-discrimination laws that other businesses had to follow?

    • Tangent002 ✓

      Germany allowed businesses to refuse service to Jewish customers. I’m not aware of any law that allowed Jewish businesses to refuse to serve Aryans, however.

  • Vince

    Trying to shut down someone’s livelihood ought to qualify as a hate crime. Our “justice” system is a sick joke. We have laws against homicide and assault and battery, but no laws against trying to take away someone’s means of making a living. This is disgusting.

    • TruthvLIes

      There is no doubt that it was a hate crime but we mustn’t upset the little dearies and blame them for doing something nasty. After all they are so emotionally fragile they couldn’t cope with being told the truth.

      They live in a world of fantasy where everything revolves around them and if you get in the way we will become a basket case so we will have to sue you for all the heartache you cause.

    • Lark.62

      The baker doxxed them. The baker publicized the couple’s phone number and address and riled up followers to harass them. The couple had foster children and tried to stay out of tge limelight. Yet they almost lost their foster kids due to the actions of the baker.

      Look up the whole story.

      • TruthvLIes

        A friend of mine who has been writing a blog for several years, gets death threats daily from homosexuals because he tells the truth which means that he exposes their lies and hate.

      • ppp777

        Well thank God something good come out of this mess , now the children have a chance , thank God .

        • Lark.62

          You are rejoicing over the possibility of parents losing their children and foster children losing a home? Wow.

          That is disgusting. Yet again, I am glad not to have this unspeakable christian “morality”.

          Sorry to disappoint, but in the end this couple was able to keep their foster children and they remain a family. Exactly how many children have you adopted from foster care?

          • ppp777

            They may as well be adopted by satan himself and unless God intervenes they will end up in the same place they and you are heading , hell .

          • Lark.62

            The children were adopted by parents who love them.

            Given a choice between being glad that these children have people who love them and spewing maliciousness and hate, I will continue to wish everyone happiness and a loving family. Including you.

            And I do not think you are inherently evil or deserve to be tortured. Unlike your beliefs about me.

            However, I do not want your religious belief. Ugh. I feel sorry for you. How awful to live with beliefs that cause you to be sad when foster children are loved. I don’t want what you have.

          • ppp777

            If them reprobates knew the first thing about love [ or you for that matter ] they would not go within a mile of any child , they are predators by nature and are producing more for the future , love without truth is nothing but a cult .

    • Tangent002 ✓

      Religion is not a license to disobey the law.

      • NCOriolesFan

        Religious Freedom is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The couple were rightfully exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM whether you disagree with them or not.

        • Bob Johnson

          It is not Tangents002’s opinion but rather the opinion of three different courts of law which disagree with your opinion on the unrestricted universality of religious freedom.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            Anti-constitutional decisions by courts do not invalidated the constitution. But they do show that American jurisprudence no longer cares about the Constitution or recognizes that all laws MUST BE PURSUANT TO IT.

          • Blake Paine

            The constitution is what’s protecting the customer. The business owner made a general invitation to buy to the public and every member of the public has a right to NOT share the business owner’s beliefs and still buy what they offer for sale.

          • TruthvLIes

            Ever heard the saying that the law is an ass? All around the western world the law is making an ass of itself for upholding laws that are nothing more than an opportunity for sad emotionally mixed up people to take it out on others because they can’t cope with life and they believe the world owes them a living.

        • Tangent002 ✓

          Businesses of public accommodation do not have the same rights to freedom of religion as individuals, just as they do not have the same rights to freedom of association as individuals. The couple did not walk up to Melissa’s house and ask for a wedding cake, they went to their business, which offers wedding cakes for sale to the public.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            They went to buy a cake for a purpose – a homosexual wedding. The business rejected the JOB: “Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings”
            It is and always has been the right of business to reject a job based on the purpose for which the product would be used.

          • Blake Paine

            Actually no it hasn’t. If you go to a kosher deli they can’t refuse to sell to you because you aren’t going to use your purchase in a kosher manner, e.g. keep meat and dairy in separate refrigerators, not use it for a tasty bacon cheese burger.

            The business can choose what they sell but the customer can use it for whatever civil rights protected purpose they want. The customer’s wanted a wedding cake to use for a wedding consistent with their own beliefs – the business owner has no right to refuse purchase because of that.

          • Liz C

            They refused to personalize the cake with same sex figures and names.That is within their constitutional rights.

          • Blake Paine

            No they never discussed design of the cake and what trailer park do they put names on a wedding cake?

          • Michael C

            That’s incorrect. If someone told you that it was about figurines and names, they lied to you. The customer never requested figurines or names.

          • Lark.62

            They did not discuss the appearance of the cake. They just said “we will not sell a cake to you.”

          • Jim

            Find a muslim bakery and play this BS.

        • TruthvLIes

          That is right but under new laws that placate homosexuals they have more rights than anyone else.

        • Blake Paine

          There is no right to make an offer to the general public and then religiously discriminate against the people responding to the offer, the customer’s own right to religious freedom protects them from such fraudulent offers.

          If they can’t sell to people of all beliefs, or require certain beliefs be held by the customer to make the sale at the very least they have to make that clear in the original offer, not just pick off customers responding to that offer.

          Either the business will sell to customers so they can use their purchase consistent with their own faith or they shouldn’t be offering to a group of all faiths – the public – in the first place.

      • Lydia Church

        Yes, it is. Acts 5; 29.
        We obey God above any law.
        He trumps all laws, and so do His laws.
        Only an atheist would not know this.

        • ThroatwobblerMangrove

          You need to re-read that part about rendering unto Caesar.

        • Tim Matter

          No it isn’t. Romans 13.
          1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

          • ppp777

            The difference here is the government have past that line and are trying to over rule Gods clear laws , can’t you understand this ? , clearly not .

          • Tim Matter

            Who do you think was in charge when Paul wrote that? The (pagan at that time) Roman Empire. Their laws surely didn’t all align with “Gods clear laws” and Paul didn’t write any escape clauses into these passages.
            Isn’t this line crystal clear? “…for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

          • ppp777

            That is a principle within an obvious context , if they clearly go against Gods laws [ like abortion ] , then it is null and void , clearly , oh boy .

          • Tim Matter

            You sure can find excuses to get around those parts of the Bible that you don’t like, can’t you. And you have the nerve to tell everybody else which parts THEY have to adhere to. Did you ever wonder why they don’t take you seriously?

          • ppp777

            You are obviously reprobate in the word .

          • Tim Matter

            But I can read and understand English.
            “…for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

          • ppp777

            Oh have the day off will you .

          • Tim Matter

            You first.

      • TruthvLIes

        And hate is not a valid reason to ruin a person’s livelihood.

      • Recognizing_Truth

        No law was broken, the business was simply choosing to refuse a job that was for a specific purpose.
        “Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings”

        Businesses are allowed to do this all the time. It was the PURPOSE (end use) that was rejected, not the person buying it. This has always been recognized as the right of businesses.
        If a heterosexual friend had gone in to purchase the cake, the result would have been the same – because the job was rejected based on the PURPOSE not the PERSON.

        • TruthvLIes

          Unless the lesbians can prove that cakes made for same sex weddings were only off limits to lesbians and homosexuals, there is no case to answer.

          No different going to a Ford dealership and asking for a Chrysler and the salesman refuses the request so the lesbians claim they are being discriminated against ignoring the fact that no one going to the dealership will be sold a Chrysler.

        • Blake Paine

          You don’t understand the law it seems, the civil right is to be without discrimination by these qualities directly or indirectly, period. They can’t even be in the decision tree no matter who is the actual customer. Not creed, religion, race, séx, sexual orientation, military status, disability, etc.

          And the customer can use their purchase for their own civil rights based purpose, the business could no more refuse selling a cake because it was going to be used at a gay wedding reception than it could a black one, a Jewish one, etc.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            Odd. You claim the “right” is to be “without discrimination by these qualities, directly or indirectly, period.”

            That is certainly an interesting point. Let’s apply it in toto and in perpetuity to the Constitutionally enumerated and protected rights of
            – Free Speech: eliminate all “hate speech” laws and laws which directly or indirectly interfere with the right
            – Freedom of Worship: eliminate all laws that attempt to interpret and directly or indirectly interfere with ANY form of worship at ANY place and ANY time, just as the “right” is intended to be recognized
            – Freedom to keep and bear Arms: eliminate all “gun control” and registration, repeal the restrictions and taxes on any and all firearm ownership, remove “firearm” from the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco, as all of these directly or indirectly interfere with the protected right to keep and bear arms.

            And, everyone who has ever been affected by, or adjudicated against or affected by any of these laws should receive $35,000 for each offense for “emotional damages”.

          • Blake Paine

            You are confusing liberties with rights. And, like it or not, states can enumerate and acknowledge rights other states or the feds don’t.

            Civil liberties and laws saying how they will be respected are completely constitutional. The state acknowledges that to be free from civil rights discrimination in a public dealing is a right.

            And it says regarding businesses making public offers of sale that it means full enjoyment of any service the business chose to offer without civil right discrimination.

            Either the business is offering the sale of wedding cakes regardless of religion, séx, or sexual orientation or they should have made the offer a public one in the first place.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            I’ve confused nothing. Just repeated your word – rights – and showed you that you are applying a double standard.

          • Blake Paine

            Not ‘my’ word, the Constitution and state’s word.

            And not a ‘double standard’, but how the state law says civil rights must be respected and explicitly prohibits unlawful discrimination to the contrary. Neither state or federal law requires your red herring interpretations for those other liberties.

            You can’t just make up your own interpretation.

      • Jim

        So go “play this game” with a nice “Sharia compliant” bakery.
        You won’t because you are cowardly scum.

      • willhen50

        The Law is not a “license to disobey” the RIGHTS of Family Owned Businesses to exercise their religion or beliefs. The Burwell versus Hobby Lobby (2014) decision of the supreme court.
        The First Amendment specifically states that the government cannot impose restrictions prohibiting the exercise of religion and the government cannot establish a mandatory religion.
        The supreme court ruled that mandatory prayer was unConstitutional they did not invoke the Establishment Clause; where liberal judges and courts have used the “Separation of Church and State” claim to remove religion entirely from public places.
        The thing is, these “DISCRIMINATION LAWS” can be manipulated, they are not applied equally or justly, most of the time the liberal system will target a conservative business to set a precedent and shop for a judge to make it “legal.” We have seen where blacks that target whites, Jews, or women because of who they are are not subject to the same discrimination accusations as whites who are called racists, homophobic, or misogynists just for speaking out against false claims.

    • Blake Paine

      No one tried to do that of course. They filed a complaint they had been treated illegally, that’s all. Point of fact the business closed its storefront before the state had even reached a ruling.

      The owner sabotaged their business, no one else.

  • vreed lak72

    This is so disturbing. Oregon’s Court of Appeals should’ve issued this decision BEFORE December 25 and included the following message to the Kleins: “MERRY CHRISTMAS”

  • NCOriolesFan

    The baker couple should sue Oregon for the same $135K for their emotional damage and mental rape of their CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

    • TruthvLIes

      Of course they should but as the courts are in the control of homosexual demands I doubt if any judge would have the courage to find in their favour.

    • Recognizing_Truth

      They should. They could.
      It would be wildly expensive.
      This type of legal intimidation is what keeps the court system from being the justice system it was originally designed to be.

  • Honesty Counts

    The problem with these liberal courts and homosexuals are that they force their own beliefs on everyone else.
    Will a Muslim Baker be forced to bake a Jewish wedding cake or a cake that’s says, “Allah is not the God of the Bible?
    Will a Muslim deli have to sell kosher products?
    Will an atheist store have to sell Christian merchandise?
    It is wrong for our government to tell any store, bakery, flower shop, or photography studio what products they have to sell so that those shops don’t look biased?
    Ridiculous!!!
    This is America where we all have the freedom of religion and speech.
    It is well past time that the courts and our government realize that our Constitution does NOT guarantee that you won’t be offended by another’s freedom of speech and religion.

    • Michael C

      Will a Muslim Baker be forced to bake a Jewish wedding cake or a cake that’s says, “Allah is not the God of the Bible?

      If a bakery owned by a Muslim person sells wedding cakes, they would not be permitted to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a customer just because they’re Jewish. They would not be prohibited from refusing to write that saying on the cake, though.

      Will a Muslim deli have to sell kosher products? Will an atheist store have to sell Christian merchandise?

      No.They can pick and choose which products they sell, they don’t get to pick and choose who they sell those products to.

      It is wrong for our government to tell any store, bakery, flower shop, or photography studio what products they have to sell so that those shops don’t look biased?

      Is this a statement or a question? Either way, the business gets to pick which products and services they’d be willing to offer to the general public. The business cannot refuse to provide those chosen products and services on the basis of any of the specific characteristics outlined in civil rights legislation.

      For example, if a restaurant chooses to put communion wafers and wine on their menu, they cannot refuse to sell communion wafers and wine to non-Christians. It’s on their menu. They’re an open-to-the-public business and they can’t discriminate on the basis of the customer’s religion (even if it is against their religion to serve non-Christians communion wafers and wine).

      If the business is unwilling to provide a specific product or service without discrimination, their best option would be to remove that item from their menu entirely.

      • Recognizing_Truth

        No.They can pick and choose which products they sell, they don’t get to pick and choose who they sell those products to.

        And, refusing to sell a cake for use as a homosexual wedding cake is exactly “picking and choosing which product” they would not sell.

        The inconsistency in the interpretation and application of such broad-reaching law is a serious issue that shows how wrong this type of legislation is. Even if/though a law’s text is pursuant to the Constitution, it is still possible – as is the case here – that the law is not applied in a manner pursuant with the Constitution.

        • Michael C

          “Recognizing_Truth” doesn’t get to tell Oregon what their laws mean. They’re their laws. When you make your own state, you can have your own laws.

          Neither does “Recognizing_Truth” get to decide if Oregon’s laws as applied are constitutional. You’re entitled to your personal opinion, but that’s about as far as that goes.

          • Recognizing_Truth

            And Michael C has spoken, so the discussion is over.

            If people sit idly by and allow localities, states, or the federal government to create laws that are unfair, or apply them in an unfair or inconsistent manner, then people deserve to be ruled by their government and can say nothing when it affects them.

            Those of us who speak our mind and challenge the law or its application are simply being good citizens.

            You speak your mind, to convince people that “the law is the law”

            And I will continue to speak my mind showing that sometimes the law shouldn’t be the law, or, as in this case, the law is not being applied as the law was intended.

            Have a great life Michael C.

          • Michael C

            the law is not being applied as the law was intended.

            Legislators around the nation have the ability to write exemptions into their state civil rights laws. For example, a couple states exempt single-sex gyms (like Curves) from their laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

            Legislators have this ability.

            Only a minority of states protect gay people from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations but none of them appear to be trying to amend their laws to exempt wedding vendors from obeying the same civil rights laws that other businesses must follow.

            Perhaps these laws aren’t as widely viewed as “unfair” or “not being applied as intended” as you personally feel.

          • Blake Paine

            No he just has the rational and legal answer, The business sold wedding cakes and the customer can use it according to their on beliefs and needs, not the business owners.

          • TruthvLIes

            Anyone can mount a case that any law is unconstitutional anywhere.

          • Blake Paine

            If someone tried to say they didn’t sell ‘same séx wedding cakes’, I’d just reply “That’s fine, I’ll buy an opposite séx wedding cake for my wedding then.”

            Hint: they look exactly the same.

        • TruthvLIes

          And in most cases the law is applied on the basis of someone feelings, not a specific act.

          I am going to take the government to court because I feel that I should have a Rolls Royce like all the other rich people and the government is not giving me enough pension so I can by one so they are discriminating against me.

          The government should not be allowed to deny my feelings in this matter as it makes me feel a second class citizen, offended, emotionally deprived and all the other things the lesbians claimed.

    • Tangent002 ✓

      “Will a Muslim Baker be forced to bake a Jewish wedding cake or a cake that’s says, “Allah is not the God of the Bible?””

      A Muslim baker could legally refuse to decorate a cake with a star of David, sure. So could a Christian baker. They could also legally refuse to write any message they find offensive on their product. If a Muslim baker sells wedding cakes, it cannot refuse to sell one to a Jewish person, however.

      “Will a Muslim deli have to sell kosher products?
      Will an atheist store have to sell Christian merchandise?”

      No, and no. A business can decide to sell or not sell whatever products they wish. That is not considered discrimination because it applies to all customers. If a Muslim deli does sell kosher products, it cannot discriminate against particular customers based on certain protected characteristics.

      If the couple has asked for their wedding cake to be decorated with a rainbow flag, Sweet Cakes by Melissa could have refused to produce that design element and not run afoul of Oregon anti-discrimination statutes.

      • Recognizing_Truth

        Conflating the “sell for” and “sell to” issue is exactly the problem here.

        Imagine this:
        If a CHRISTIAN walks in to buy a cake for a Jewish friend and wants “Allah is not God” on it, can the baker refuse to sell it? Knowing the cake will be used for that purpose will they be required to sell the cake if asked to leave it blank so the buyer can fill in his message later? Can the Christian sue the baker under the CRA? Because they refused to sell to a Christian? Because they refused to sell for a Jewish purpose?

        • Blake Paine

          None of these cases have been about the design or words on the cake – the customers were rejected before that happened.

          The business can have a policy about design, they can’t have a policy about who can buy from them.

          • Liz C

            You have the facts wrong. The business rejected that order. Not the customers.

          • Blake Paine

            And since the order was the customers its the same thing. The law says they have a civil right to be without discrimination and have ‘full enjoyment of any’ service the business offers, including wedding cakes that they freely invited the public to buy.

            Not ‘most’, not ‘all but this’, but any service. Many southern restaurants would seat blacks in the dining area but not let them sit at the lunch counter – that was in violation of the civil rights laws. Same here.

            Either the business sells wedding cakes to the public respecting their civil rights or they shouldn’t be offering them to the public at all.

          • Charles

            Right because you aren’t allowed to have religious convictions and sell goods. Makes total sense.

          • Blake Paine

            Of course you can, you just can’t treat others as if they share your conviction, religious – philosophical – whatever its source. You want to only sell kosher, have at it – but any customer can use their purchase in non-kosher manners.

            An Amish business owner said his beliefs should allow him to run it as his faith dictated regardless of the beliefs of others and the SCOTUS said that wasn’t true, it would have the effect of imposing his beliefs upon others. One can presume he sold his business and did something else IF his beliefs were really as important to him as he told the court.

            Ditto, if this business owner really feels they can’t sell something to the public while respecting their civil rights the solution is simple and obvious – sell something else.

          • Lark.62

            They rejected the customer.

            They refused to sell their product to the customer before finding out how the customer wanted the cake to be decorated. The problem was the identity of the customer not the appearance of the cake.

            For all they knew, the customer wanted a cake identical to one the baker had made before. But the baker rejected the customer without knowing what the customer wanted the cake to look like.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      Will a Muslim Baker be forced to bake a Jewish wedding cake

      If they sell wedding cakes, you’re darn right they will be. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      or a cake that’s says, “Allah is not the God of the Bible?”

      Who on earth would want that on their wedding cake in the first place?

      Will an atheist store have to sell Christian merchandise?

      I’m an atheist, and if I had a store, I’d sell all the Christian merchandise I could, if it was making me money. Like if I owned a bookstore, I’d have no problem selling Bibles or Christian books, if they sold well. The existence of Christians and Christianity doesn’t violate any of my freedoms or offend me or something. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as a wise man once said.

      But, in that case, this hypothetical bookstore would not really be an “atheist store”, unless I was just selling books and/or merchandise that had something to do with atheism. It would be a store owned by an atheist that serves the general public. That’s why I wonder about people referring to things like Sweet Cakes as a “Christian business”. Unless they only deal with Christian-themed things, it’s not a “Christian business”, it’s a business owned by Christians.

      It is wrong for our government to tell any store, bakery, flower shop,
      or photography studio what products they have to sell so that those
      shops don’t look biased?

      That doesn’t apply to this situation at all, because the bakery wasn’t asked to make a different product. They were asked for the exact same kind of cake they sell to anybody else.

    • Lark.62

      Puhleeze. Who puts a statement about another person’s religion on a wedding cake? No one.

      If a Jewish couple went into a bakery and ordered a wedding cake typical of those normally made by the baker, the baker could not refuse to serve them because they are Jewish. This is true if the baker is muslim or hindu or christian or atheist.

      The baker chooses his product – wedding cakes, or vegan wedding cakes, or strawberry flavored wedding cakes. The “Bacon Bakery” can choose to sell only cakes made with bacon. That is the product.

      The customer gets to order the product the bakers chooses to sell. If a Jewish couple wants a cake from the Bacon Bakery, the baker cannot say “it’s against our religion to serve our cakes to Jews. But if they never make bacon free cakes for other customers, they don’t need to make one for a Jewish couple.

      If a person walked into a vegan bakery wearing a “God loves deer hunting” t-shirt, the baker could not refuse to sell this customer a cake. But the product is still vegan cakes.

      In places where it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, a baker cannot refuse to sell one of their typical cakes to a gay couple.

  • Lydia Church

    We are not baking any cakes that violate our faith. Period. We are not doing anything else that violates our faith either, for that matter. Nothing. We have that right, whether the world wants to acknowledge it, or not. Not only that, but we have the duty to obey God above any man-made law if a contradiction exists, which in this case, it does. Any real Christian knows that. They can persecute us and worse, but we will obey GOD above man as true Christians will do. Acts 5; 29. And it applies to everything. Attacking, singling out, and persecuting these people, that is the hate crime, nothing else. But these persecuting haters will all answer for this one day and the result will be punishment for them from God.

    • Lydia Church

      Meaning the gay couple being the haters who will be punished for their hate crimes.

    • AMEN!

  • 1luisa

    Matt 5:11, Matt 5:43-48. Pray for the Kleins to follow Christ and rejoice over losing their money cause it was for Christ’s sake. Christ set aside His rights to die for our sins. He did good and still is and hated even as I write this. Dearest Kleins Jesus suffered and died for you. Suffer for Him. Pray for the two women who did this and those in authority who are doing this. I trust you are. Those on this board that profess Christ pray and know that Christ never promised following Him would be easy. In fact He told us to pick up a cross and follow him. It will cost us dearly to follow Him, but we have promises that when we lose our life we will get it back. When Jesus returns every knee will bow and confess He is Lord. Everyone including those involved in this litigation. May they bow with joy on that last day and not dread of a Christless eternity.

  • IzTheBiz

    It doesn’t matter in the ultimate, because Christ is returning as judge.If you disobey God’s law, you only have a limited time to do so. When He comes the times of mercy and grace will have ended. Judgement will be swift and righteous. Repent while you have time!

    • TheKingOfRhye

      If it really doesn’t matter, then bake the dang cake.

  • Liz C

    There are no emotional damages! The couple does not deserve a financial award at all. This is a crime against the owners of the bakery!

    • TheKingOfRhye

      No, the bakers violated Oregon state law. It was literally a crime against the couple.

  • Tatyana Iniesta

    Hmmm some people are so evil they’ll go to such extents to try & make things bad for you, but GOD is perfect so fear not. Instead of making a big scene out of nothing, those 2 women could of gone to another bakery & get a cake but NO they decided to take those poor people to court smfh that goes to show how evil people are. Same way you want respect with your same sex thing is the same way you HAVE to respect other people’s religion, You can’t have your cake & eat it too (No pun intended) 😒💁

  • TheKingOfRhye

    I thought this was kind of interesting, from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries’s press release on this case:

    The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.

    The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.

    Also:

    This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

  • Jon Staples

    Meh… it’s against federal law to deny such services to those who choose to follow religion…

    Goose, meat gander.

  • Jim

    Oregon is a messed up place. My sympathies to these nice people who are getting shafted by scumbag judges. To ALL the GOOD people in Oregon you REALLY need to stop electing left wing scum to public office.
    Why doesn’t an “oddball sexually couple” (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) try this kind of BS with a nice bakery owned by muslims.?

  • willhen50

    Still say this is a violation of the 8th Amendment of Cruel and Unusual punishment. A fine or penalty is supposed to just and fair and hold the prerequisites of Constitutional RIGHTS.