Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint

[tlongII]

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/i...an_couple_refused_wedding.html#incart_m-rpt-2

A same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding in January but were refused service by a Gresham bakery have filed a complaint with the state, alleging Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation.

Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries' civil rights division will investigate to determine if the business violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations.

It's the 10th complaint to the state in the last five years involving allegations of discrimination in a public place based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the bureau.

Rachel N. Cryer, 30, said she had gone to the Gresham bakery on Jan. 17 for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake. She met with the owner, Aaron Klein.
Klein asked for the date of the wedding and names of the bride and groom, Cryer said.

"I told him, 'There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel,' " according to her complaint.

Klein responded that his business does not provide its services for same-sex weddings, she said.

"Respondent cited a religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry," the complaint says.

Klein earlier this year told The Oregonian that he and his wife, Melissa, turn down requests to bake cakes for same-sex marriages because that goes against their Christian faith and cited their freedom of religious opinion. He has denied disparaging the couple.

So how do you folks feel about this? Personally I think the complaint is without merit. While I sympathize with the same-sex couple I believe a business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone they want.

 

[donkiez]

I could make an argument both ways, but ultimately I side with the lesbo's. I respect a business right to refuse service to anyone, but in this case it was meant solely as a political and/or social statement, not in the better interest of their business. If they want to make these kind of statements they should be prepared for the fall out. To put this in perspective, would it be ok for the to refuse a wedding cake to an interracial couple because they didn't support crossbreeding?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

I could make an argument both ways, but ultimately I side with the lesbo's. I respect a business right to refuse service to anyone, but in this case it was meant solely as a political and/or social statement, not in the better interest of their business. If they want to make these kind of statements they should be prepared for the fall out. To put this in perspective, would it be ok for the to refuse a wedding cake to an interracial couple because they didn't support crossbreeding?

Its not 'OK', but its their right

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Its not a political or social statement, its a religious one. Its a very mainstream belief of most of the major religions and I think they should be allowed to not go against their political belief and refuse.

 

[porkchopexpress]

How is it any different than this?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

What if they refused service because the couple is black? Or an interracial couple? What if my religion said interracial marriages are a sin?

Can businesses decide not to serve people for any reason whatsoever?

I say let them eat cake!

 

[donkiez]

Its not a political or social statement, its a religious one. Its a very mainstream belief of most of the major religions and I think they should be allowed to not go against their political belief and refuse.

Good point, it is a religious statement which has no place in politics or social issues. Unfortunately they are all somehow twisted together these days. At what point does "your" religious rights and freedoms infringe on someone else's rights and freedoms?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

How is it any different than this?

That is not a commonly held mainstream religious belief.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

What if they refused service because the couple is black? Or an interracial couple? What if my religion said interracial marriages are a sin?

Can businesses decide not to serve people for any reason whatsoever?

I say let them eat cake!

Can you ask a muslim bakery to bake a cake of the prophet muhammed?

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

What if they refused service because the couple is black? Or an interracial couple? What if my religion said interracial marriages are a sin?

Can businesses decide not to serve people for any reason whatsoever?

I say let them eat cake!

I'm pretty sure they do, and it's the reason for this entire situation.

 

[porkchopexpress]

That is not a commonly held mainstream religious belief.

So if it's a commonly (not so common these days) held religious belief, it's ok to discriminate against a protected class (sexual orientation is a protected class in Oregon)?

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I think it's sad that the bakery refused service to anyone. If that's their religious beliefs, that's their religious beliefs. They disagree with gay marriage. It's sad. It's unfortunate. It's unkind. It's not the "human" thing to do. We should all love one another.

That being said, I think it's stupid the couple filed a complaint. It's as annoying and obnoxious as the do-gooder little girl in elementary school that is the ultimate teacher's pet. Tattletale, tattletale. If they don't like it, they should say "F off - we'll take our business elsewhere," and leave it at that.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

So if it's a commonly (not so common these days) held religious belief, it's ok to discriminate against a protected class (sexual orientation is a protected class in Oregon)?

Its their business, so yes. If they want to take the backlash from it, so be it. Let people protest, well within their rights to do so. However, I don't think that they should be forced to do something that goes against their (and probably 90% of the world's religion's) beliefs.

 

[donkiez]

The irony is that it's not very christian to hate, belittle and ostracize someone for their life style and beliefs. Disagree all you want but love thy neighbor, right?

WWJD?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think it's sad that the bakery refused service to anyone. If that's their religious beliefs, that's their religious beliefs. They disagree with gay marriage. It's sad. It's unfortunate. It's unkind. It's not the "human" thing to do. We should all love one another.

That being said, I think it's stupid the couple filed a complaint. It's as annoying and obnoxious as the do-gooder little girl in elementary school that is the ultimate teacher's pet. Tattletale, tattletale. If they don't like it, they should say "F off - we'll take our business elsewhere," and leave it at that.

I like this post. I agree on your take for both the business and the couple.

 

[porkchopexpress]

Its their business, so yes. If they want to take the backlash from it, so be it. Let people protest, well within their rights to do so. However, I don't think that they should be forced to do something that goes against their (and probably 90% of the world's religion's) beliefs.

75% of Americans are Christian, yet state after state is starting to legalize gay marriage. Spain and Portugal are Catholic countries, yet gay marriage is legal. Same with Argentina and parts of Mexico (I think). Just because you (generic you) are Christian/Catholic and you don't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean that it is still a commonly held Christian belief (even if it is the official stance of the church).

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I like this post. I agree on your take for both the business and the couple.

Eh, personally I liked my other comment on cake-eating more.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Yes. But I said the religion's beliefs. You can't prove that a majority of Christians support gay marriage around the world even though they are predominantly catholic or religious. Even though, its irrelevant to this particular incident because this couple happens to have a strong religious belief for "traditional marriage". To force them to participate in this would be akin to religious persecution.

 

[crandc]

A secular business is subject to secular law. If law prohibits discrimination in public accommodation, the business cannot discriminate. End of story.

Clergy have total decision making power as to whether they will perform a marriage. They can refuse same sex couples, mixed race couples, mixed religion couples, cross border couples, couples too old to procreate, whatever. A secular business, however, cannot pick and choose. If you want to run a bakery, you follow the law.

Sidebar, I once briefly worked at a bakery where the owner explained it took 9 hours to get the day's work done, but he could not afford all that overtime so he'd start paying OT after 9 hours worked instead of 8. I filed a complaint with the state who informed him he could not just invent laws to suit himself, and he had to shell out back pay for many past years. No difference. Businesses, like individuals, cannot pick and choose what laws to follow. Of course, we all have the right to try and change laws. I understand why folks ask why don't the women just take their business elsewhere? Answer, because businesses do not have the right to pick and choose what laws they follow and must face consequences at flagrant legal violations.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

A secular business is subject to secular law. If law prohibits discrimination in public accommodation, the business cannot discriminate. End of story.

Clergy have total decision making power as to whether they will perform a marriage. They can refuse same sex couples, mixed race couples, mixed religion couples, cross border couples, couples too old to procreate, whatever. A secular business, however, cannot pick and choose. If you want to run a bakery, you follow the law.

Sidebar, I once briefly worked at a bakery where the owner explained it took 9 hours to get the day's work done, but he could not afford all that overtime so he'd start paying OT after 9 hours worked instead of 8. I filed a complaint with the state who informed him he could not just invent laws to suit himself, and he had to shell out back pay for many past years. No difference. Businesses, like individuals, cannot pick and choose what laws to follow. Of course, we all have the right to try and change laws. I understand why folks ask why don't the women just take their business elsewhere? Answer, because businesses do not have the right to pick and choose what laws they follow and must face consequences at flagrant legal violations.

I don't disagree. But people use religion to skirt the law all the time, and I'm sure these people will continue to do so. They're going to be forced to make a wedding cake for a couple when they follow their religion and their religion doesn't believe in gay marriage? It's dumb, yes. But now we're forcing them to change their religious beliefs. It's a stupid umbrella, yes. But you're forcing the bakers to change their core beliefs. Yet, the bakers can't ask gay people to change their core beliefs.

I guess I just don't understand why the couple is making a stink. I'm not saying they're in the wrong, necessarily. I think it's petty and stupid, and it just enrages/annoys other groups who don't really care one way about gay marriage, but they don't want to be forced into believing or not believing. If I were the couple, I'd put my middle-finger in the air, walk away, and let the bakers stuck in the 1800's stay there. Ultimately, they'd be the bigger people.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Eh, personally I liked my other comment on cake-eating more.

I didn't get your cake response. I say let them eat cake (a Marie Antoinette reference) and you said you are pretty sure they do and that is why he have this situation. But isn't it the opposite, they did not them them eat cake and that is why we have this situation. Had they just served them with them with the cake, none of this would happened.

Anyways, I going to get some lunch . . . and some cake.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

cake is pussy. (should be pie).

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I knew El-P would at least get it.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Good point, it is a religious statement which has no place in politics or social issues. Unfortunately they are all somehow twisted together these days. At what point does "your" religious rights and freedoms infringe on someone else's rights and freedoms?

Your rights to Freedom of Religion and the free exercise thereof means:
•The Freedom of Religion is an inalienable right.
•The First Amendment provides for the Freedom of Religion for all Americans.
•The Free Exercise Clause provides that government will neither control nor prohibit the free exercise of one’s religion.
•The government will remain neutral

 

[crandc]

No one is being forced to change their religious views. They are being "forced" to follow secular law. Like every citizen and resident of these United States. A bakery is not a church. The couple is being neither petty nor stupid. Any more than I was being petty and stupid when I said the place where I worked needed to follow the law.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

No one is being forced to change their religious views. They are being "forced" to follow secular law. Like every citizen and resident of these United States. A bakery is not a church. The couple is being neither petty nor stupid. Any more than I was being petty and stupid when I said the place where I worked needed to follow the law.

so...the only rights that count are the rights tthat you agree with?

I dont follow an orgonized religion, so by your statement here, would I have no rights?

funny, I thought we all still had First Amendment rights

 

[Eastoff]

so...the only rights that count are the rights tthat you agree with?

I dont follow an orgonized religion, so by your statement here, would I have no rights?

funny, I thought we all still had First Amendment rights

And if a Muslim business wanted to refuse a jewish couple?

 

[Denny Crane]

As ugly as their actions are, the bakery is private property, and the owners really should be able to refuse to serve who they choose. The recourse is to patronize the bakery up the street who wants the business.

What are you going to do, send in the SWAT team to force the people to make the cake?

 

[Eastoff]

As ugly as their actions are, the bakery is private property, and the owners really should be able to refuse to serve who they choose. The recourse is to patronize the bakery up the street who wants the business.

What are you going to do, send in the SWAT team to force the people to make the cake?

What is your feeling about companies that sue for slander when someone writes a negative review?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

And if a Muslim business wanted to refuse a jewish couple?

lol, well, I am sure you would be ok with that...