Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple?
Interesting case:
An Oregon baker has refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, allegedly calling them 'abominations unto the Lord.'
Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint.
The woman, who said she'd been served by the owner before without issue, claims Klein refused to take an order from her partner when he learned the cake was for a gay marriage.
Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement office is now looking into the case to determine whether the baker broke the law by discriminating against the couple.
The Oregon Equality Act 2007 outlaws discrimination by an individual or a business against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Klein denied calling the women 'abominations' but admitted to rejecting their custom.
'I apologized for wasting their time and said we don't do same-sex marriages,'
'I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, (it's) just something I believe in very strongly.'
He told the news station his religious beliefs were more important than making money and the state law.
'If I have to be, I guess, be penalized for my beliefs, then I guess, well, that'll be what it is,' he said, adding that, in his view, his constitutional rights should override Oregon law.
'My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it,' Klein said.
The case will likely fall to a judge to decide. The women said they didn't want to talk about the complaint until they received further legal advice.
Speech
The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference.
Press
The First Amendment gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference. This also means people have the right to publish their own newspapers, newsletters, magazines, etc.
Religion
The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and protects each person's right to practice (or not practice) any faith without government interference.
Petition
The First Amendment says that people have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or that they feel strongly about. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation.
Assembly
The First Amendment says that people have the right to gather in public to march, protest, demonstrate, carry signs and otherwise express their views in a nonviolent way. It also means people can join and associate with groups and organizations without interference.
Was the law broken? Oregon has an equality act on the books but it doesn’t recognize same sex marriage. If the lawyers for the plaintiff can find proof that the baker made a wedding cake for a couple who wasn’t legally married (practically any couple who orders before the wedding) or another couple where one partner was a divorcee’ or had a previous child out of wedlock or any or any of the other endless proscriptions in the bible, then he broke the law.
He states that his first amendment rights allow him to practice his beliefs but that isn’t what he’s doing. His religious views do not negate other peoples’ rights. Realistically, he could refuse to serve a democrat, stating that anyone who is a democrat automatically supports abortion. He could refuse to serve anyone who has a different religious foundation (pagan, hindu, Buddhist) on the grounds that they are idolators. In law, however, you can’t own a business and then post a listing stating “we will not serve the following people…”. that was the basis of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. it was common at the beginning of the 20th century to refuse service to certain groups: blacks irish, etc. under law, you can’t do that any longer. Baking a cake is not endorsing any viewpoint, it is fulfilling a service which your business offers. It wouldn’t be legal to refuse to bake a cake with a star of david on it, nor would it be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a kwanzaa celebration. I think if they pursue this, they can make a case that the law was broken.
As a young man, I worked for an old couple in a family run business. They taught business rule #1: white customer, black customer, asian, hispanic customer, gay, straight customer. What does it matter as long as customer has green (money), good customer.
I am with aliencubby on this. and would like to add: IF homosexual people had the same rights (in other words:if it wouldn't be an issue of personal fight for everyone and every couple every time going to the bakery...) it would be much easier, both with education and with litigation!
As long as there are two laws in concurrence, as long as there is discrimination (and there is, legally), all those bakers (imagine him being a lawyer) have a perfect alibi for their crime.
And yes, it is a taboo to question the liberty of religion, and I strongly feel that it should be reviewed, for it is not the same that you can freely (really?) choose an religion or belief (or none at all) or that a religious group has rights upon an other group...
Even catholic christians consider themselves victims in this world, and they have the mightiest political, economic and grassroot-lobby there has ever been! They rule and make presidents swear, they decide 'good' from 'wrong' and benedict weapons and soldiers... they are omnipresent; even in the minds of those who claim not to be religious, but judge as if they were.
If you don't believe this, then tell me what has a condom to do with religion....?!
(Apologies for my bad english, btw.)
I think it's probably a safe bet that at this point most courts will not put discrimination against gay people in general, and in this case, gay marriage, on the same par as racial discrimination. But it's another point of the law that is going to have to evolve over time. I think that anti-gay churches are on the wrong side of history and will lose eventually, but in the meantime, we're probably going to win some and lose some.
Matthew 22:20-22
King James Version (KJV)
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Or, in other words, "When in Rome..." keep your faith but follow the civil laws.
I've explicitly said I don't agree with whatever he did, but that he was probably within his legal rights. Just because I stopped to consider his side of the story doesn't mean I support him.
It might help if you paused once in a while to set your personal feelings aside and think about it objectively. Knee-jerk reactions don't really accomplish much. And yeah. I'm sure the ACLU will jump into the fray and this will turn into a huge discussion. Which is a good thing. You can't bully people into accepting you. If you try that, you'll still end up with a lot of resentment, despite the acceptance at the surface. Change is imminent, but it has to come with education, not litigation.
Just because the baker gets sued or punished, he will not become accepting of homosexuality. This won't encourage other haters to join the PFLAG. They'll still serve you, but grudgingly. At this point in time, that's about all we can hope for. And I'm sure things WILL get better. It just needs time.
And if an objective analysis of the situation, and my stating my thoughts about it makes me "the anti-gay gay-guy on the gay-site", then so be it. I refuse to get all emotionally worked up needlessly and rant about it and call names without critically thinking about it first.
Personally, I think it's dumb that a case like this would wind up in the courts at all. The lesbian couple should have just reported him to the BBB and found another bakery.
Tell their friends not to go there on Facebook, or something. Although their point is well taken, I don't know that a cake is worth a federal case.
Exactly. If he refused to make a cake for an African American couple then the whole nation would be against him and put him to shame. But because its a lesbian couple then many people think its OK and defend his point of view.
I wouldn't to eat a cake he made begrudgingly anyways because he'd probably spit in it, but still...
As for the "devil's advocate" question, yes, you can refuse service to a "homophobe". Homophobia is not a religion, race, gender, sexuality orientation, age, etc. It is an action. If one does not allow a certain action to take place upon the premises (IE: open hostility/bigotry), then...that action is banned from the premises. The one qualifier is, anybody who is partaking of that action, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc, is to be banned from the premises.
Personally, I would have looked the man in the eye and said: "Thank you for telling me. I will gladly take my business elsewhere as I wouldn't want some jackhole like you touching anything that would be special for me and my spouse".
As to whether it violates the Oregon Equality Law, it probably does - and they will probably enforce it, and it will lead to a media spectacle, and drama, there's no doubt about it. And the guy does acknowledge he's standing up for his beliefs (to be bigoted), no matter what the courts decide. If a business can decide whether or not it will serve a registered sex offender or certain celebrities or whatever, it's their prerogative.
Incidentally, it's the same set of laws which allow the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK to publicly stage protests and marches, expressing their own set of hateful beliefs to anyone who passes by.
While I don't agree with the baker's actions or his personal beliefs, I don't see this is as any more offensive and annoying than the JWs who come door to door asking you if you found Jesus, or the street preachers or doomsday nuts.
Let's not cloud our interpretations of the Constitutional rights and laws with our personal sentiments, no matter how "morally right" we are. It's up to the courts to decide the couple's and the baker's legal standing. Without preconceived emotional influence.
If this religious bigot is allowed to do this, then an apartment owner would also be within his rights to refuse an apartment to a gay couple because he does not believe in gays living together. Soon we would be back in the days when gay sex is illegal and grounds for imprisonment.
When there is a law that is as clear as the Oregon statute, NO religious preference can trump the law. If it could, then Polygamy would be allowed in Utah today. The Texas cult where Mr. Jeffs was the grand pubah would be still allowed to rape teen girls. Actually, as a reference to how difficult these cultish wierdnesses are to rub out, a recent report says this Jeffs character is still running the lives of his subjects from jail. Latest thing he has told them is that certain couples are to separate after like 30 years of marriage and the women are to save themselves for him. We need laws in this nation to prevent religion from running over the average person's rights. Jonestown is another exampe. Freedom of Religion also should mean Freedom FROM Religion if that is what a person chooses.
every monotheistic religion has one central truth: that their respective 'god' is the one and only, the genuine savior. That is the seed of exclusivity that in the end - now - allows to call a war 'holy'. To call snipers assesinations 'honourful'. To call all men and women that don't agree to this belief, enemies.
The 'love' the bible speaks of is no unconditional love. You have to pay the price if you want to participate. Then, of course, you belong to the right side, can buy the right cake, may kiss the right - hmmm - person.
Imagine there is no heaven, above us only sky...
... and no religion too, I wonder if you can...!
What? Everyone needs to be on board in "celebrating everyone elses' love"? They can take their business elsewhere--to a gay owned bakery for instance!
I’m wondering why they would pick that bakery anyway! The cakes are ugly and unimaginative. Is there not a gay baker in Oregon ?
And the uppity dyke. What was she thinking? To go to a bake shop you frequent and support and ask for a wedding cake. Maybe she saw the crosses inside the shop and thought the guy was a real Christian. Big mistake!
Now, just curious.. Would the Anti- discrimination law still be valid, say, if a business owned by a homosexual couple denied service to an outspoken homophobic customer? Just playing devil's advocate here, to see what exactly the Oregon Equality Law implies..
In any case, I think he's a dick, but well within his rights to be a dick.