Religious Liberty Vs Civil Rights?

[Daniel2]

Another ruling against the cake shop that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple:

Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated same-sex couple's civil rights when it refused to make wedding cake, state finds

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Melissa Klein, co-owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, serves a customer in 2013. (Everton Bailey Jr./The Oregonian)

By Molly Young | myoung@oregonian.com 

Email the author | Follow on Twitter 

on January 17, 2014 at 4:46 PM, updated January 20, 2014 at 10:00 AM

State labor investigators have determined a Gresham bakery violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple when it refused to make a cake for the women's wedding.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries said Friday that it has wrapped up its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Spokesman Charlie Burr said investigators found substantial evidence the bakery unlawfully discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation.

Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries.

The controversial case began a year ago. Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman of Portland say they were denied a wedding cake by the bakery's owners, who cited their own religious beliefs. Cryer and Bowman, who are domestic partners, soon lodged a complaint with the state.

The state will now oversee a conciliation process between the two parties to see if a settlement can be reached. If not, the labor bureau may pursue charges before an administrative law judge.

Paul Thompson, the Portland attorney representing Cryer and Bowman, said the women consider the investigation’s findings bittersweet. He said the two are about as pleased as they can be, given that state investigation ultimately determined they were discriminated against.

Herbert Grey, the Beaverton attorney representing bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein, said the investigation’s outcome was expected. He said the Kleins will participate in the conciliation process, but are maintaining their original stance.

The Kleins have contended they weren't discriminating against the couple, who were customers in the past. Instead, they say they were practicing their Constitutional right to religious freedom. They have said baking a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate their Christian beliefs.

A post on the business’ Facebook page about the investigation’s findings had attracted nearly 200 comments late Friday, most in support of the owners’ stance.

"They’re being punished by the state of Oregon for refusing to participate in an event that the state of Oregon does not recognize," Grey said.

In the months after the case unfolded, Sweet Cakes by Melissa closed up shop on the edge of downtown Gresham, and the Kleins moved the business to their home.

-- Molly Young

Can anyone explain how cake baking is a violation of religious liberty?

Do people believe that in the public sector, us citizens have or should have a religious right to refuse service to anyone?

Daniel

[3DOP]

I take the position that no one should be forced to buy or sell any service or product unless they desire to do so. A religious reason is as valid as any, but no reason should be required.

[jwhitlock]

If SSM supporters picket a business because of that business's opposition to SSM, and intimidate people from going into that business, can anyone explain how that is not coercion and unlawful interference?

 

Do people believe that those with an agenda automatically have a right to such behavior because they claim their cause is "just"?

 

And which situation is more egregious? The one described in the OP, where someone can freely take their business elsewhere, or the one I've expressed - as happened in California - where actual material harm is done?

[Daniel2]

I take the position that no one should be forced to buy or sell any service or product unless they desire to do so. A religious reason is as valid as any, but no reason should be required.

So, you believe businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason? Meaning, you disagree with anti - discrimination laws...? That a business can refuse to do business with Mormons? Or Jews? Or black people? Or Asians? Or women?

[Daniel2]

If SSM supporters picket a business because of that business's opposition to SSM, and intimidate people from going into that business, can anyone explain how that is not coercion and unlawful interference?

Do people believe that those with an agenda automatically have a right to such behavior because they claim their cause is "just"?

And which situation is more egregious? The one described in the OP, where someone can freely take their business elsewhere, or the one I've expressed - as happened in California - where actual material harm is done?

Interesting questions. I personally find many demonstrations to be morally repulsive (i.e. Westboro Church), but I acknowledge and respect everyone's right of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Your position sounds as if you disagree with those rights...?

[jwhitlock]

Interesting questions. I personally find many demonstrations to be morally repulsive (i.e. Westboro Church), but I acknowledge and respect everyone's right of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Your position sounds as if you disagree with those rights...?

 

There's a difference between peaceful assembly and what quite a bit of SSM supporter demonstrations, boycotts, pickets, and vandalism were about in California. I find it interesting that our society and "judges" would get so hung up about the situation in the OP, while giving the very threatening SSM supporter actions in California a free pass.

 

Of course, I would be glad to review any references or links you have to SSM supporters being prosecuted for terroristic threats, vandalism, or intimidation of customers outside businesses during the time of Prop 8. Or do you think that those are all valid actions that should be protected just because they're SSM supporters? 

[CV75]

Do people believe that in the public sector, us citizens have or should have a religious right to refuse service to anyone?

I think business people are obligated to abide by public regulation, whether it is a health, building, tax or civil code, etc. If their private religious or other beliefs are in conflict with the obligations of public enterprise in their particular community, they can move their business to a community that doesn’t require them to adopt “the mark of the beast,” or restructure their business model to engage in private transactions within the constraints of “the beast.”

 

I think Christians can still be leaven in their communities even when doing business in an environment they do not totally approve of -- I think that is the point of being leaven. We may not have all the laws the way we want, but we can still be a force for good in these last times and strive to influence the laws in a Christlike manner.

[california boy]

Another ruling against the cake shop that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple:

Can anyone explain how cake baking is a violation of religious liberty?

Do people believe that in the public sector, us citizens have or should have a religious right to refuse service to anyone?

Daniel

 

The bakery owners are not Christian.  They don't follow the teachings of the Savior.  Have they never ever heard or read about the Good Samaritan?  Christ went to great lengths to tell his followers that we are to serve everyone, even those that are despised by cultural prejudice.  More pointedly the Samaritans were despised because of who they married.  How ironic that this bakery would refuse service to a couple because of who they choose to marry.  

 

There is absolutely nothing in the teachings of Christ that could possibly justify their "Christian" defense.  It is another instance of using religion as a weapon to justify bigotry and prejudice.  Unless you can show one instance where Christ refused to help or serve or sell or even interact with someone, you have no basis in pretending this kind of practice is somehow "christian".  

 

I am disappointed more Christians do not condemn such nonchristian behavior.  Telling blacks they can not sit at the lunch counter, not allowing Jews to be served, not selling to gays, are all completely against Christ and his message.  If I was the judge on this case, I would sentence them to actually reading the words of Christ and writing a report about what they read.

[Daniel2]

There's a difference between peaceful assembly and what quite a bit of SSM supporter demonstrations, boycotts, pickets, and vandalism were about in California. I find it interesting that our society and "judges" would get so hung up about the situation in the OP, while giving the very threatening SSM supporter actions in California a free pass.

 

Of course, I would be glad to review any references or links you have to SSM supporters being prosecuted for terroristic threats, vandalism, or intimidation of customers outside businesses during the time of Prop 8. Or do you think that those are all valid actions that should be protected just because they're SSM supporters?

I don't see the connection between the topic of this thread and the points raise, other than attempting to change the subject from anti-discrimination laws to a perceived sense of being a victim of lawless picketing.

Even so, I am unaware of any "judges" "giving a free pass" to any illegal behaviors in California.

I'm a bit perplexed by your comment that you would be happy to review any links I provide on the subject, since that is your assertion, not mine.

I am definitely opposed to any illegal activities, including vandalism or "free passes" from judges.

Daniel

[Calm]

So, you believe businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason? Meaning, you disagree with anti - discrimination laws...? That a business can refuse to do business with Mormons? Or Jews? Or black people? Or Asians? Or women?

Another ruling against the cake shop that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple:

Can anyone explain how cake baking is a violation of religious liberty?

Do people believe that in the public sector, us citizens have or should have a religious right to refuse service to anyone?

Daniel

From the article, it appears that since they had previously served the women they were not discriminating against them based on their orientation....refusing to serve them at all. Instead it appears they didnt want to be involved/support a SSM which they saw as against their religious beliefs.

I don't think people should be forced into participating/contributing to something they see as sinful...a behaviour as opposed to a person. It may be extremely bigoted, but if these had refused to make a cake to celebrate a temple sealing because they saw it as false doctrine, I think they should have a right to refuse.

Only in cases where it affects one's health or safety and there is no other viable option, should the law require participation...certainly not in luxury items like wedding cakes.

And those who are refused service should have every right to picket the place to publicise the discrimination.

[Daniel2]

I think business people are obligated to abide by public regulation, whether it is a health, building, tax or civil code, etc. If their private religious or other beliefs are in conflict with the obligations of public enterprise in their particular community, they can move their business to a community that doesn’t require them to adopt “the mark of the beast,” or restructure their business model to engage in private transactions within the constraints of “the beast.”

 

I think Christians can still be leaven in their communities even when doing business in an environment they do not totally approve of -- I think that is the point of being leaven. We may not have all the laws the way we want, but we can still be a force for good in these last times and strive to influence the laws in a Christlike manner.

Excellent post, IMO.

[BCSpace]

Can anyone explain how cake baking is a violation of religious liberty?

 

It would have been a recognition of the woman's wedding, a gay marriage, which the cake baker does not recognize.  The business is also not vital to the public interest.

[Daniel2]

It would have been a recognition of the woman's wedding, a gay marriage, which the cake baker does not recognize.  The business is also not vital to the public interest.

So, is it your belief that any business transaction first must not violate a seller's religious beliefs, in order to be governed by anti-discrimination law?

And is it your belief that any business transaction must be "vital to the public interest" to be governed by anti-discrimination law?

[Mystery Meat]

So, is it your belief that any business transaction first must not violate a seller's religious beliefs, in order to be governed by anti-discrimination law?

And is it your belief that any business transaction must be "vital to the public interest" to be governed by anti-discrimination law?

 

In my personal opinion anti-discrimination laws are awful and a violation of the Constitution. If I want to hold on to ignorant racist inclinations then I should be able to do so. My best friend in the entire world is black...when I go out to eat he is usually there with me. So if a place of business wants to exclude him from eating there, they have lost my business as well. Even if I am alone. Same goes for a member of my family who is black as well.

 

While in school I had many friends who were gay/lesbian. I went to see movies with them. I went to eat with them. One guy got drunk and kissed me. He apologized, and I laughed it off. If a place of business restricts a gay person's ability to give them money, I believe that is there right but I won't be eating there.

[3DOP]

So, you believe businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason? Meaning, you disagree with anti - discrimination laws...? That a business can refuse to do business with Mormons? Or Jews? Or black people? Or Asians? Or women?

 

Yes.

 

I believe people/businesses should be free from coercion to sell a product or service. Most of the time, money is a sufficient motivator to overcome irrational prejudices. When it isn't, there is always another vendor. Do I want to buy a taco from someone who thinks he shouldn't because of my sexual preference? No. If someone has such strong principles that they are willing to lose money for it, they should be free to do so. I'll find a taco from someone who isn't crazy enough against me to refuse my money.

[california boy]

As further PROOF that this bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding was nothing more than bigoted behavior and NOT some kind of violation of their christian beliefs, 

 

Here is the link to the article

 

Bakery Will Do Pagan, Cloning, and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings

 

Undercover reporters discovered the Oregon business that refused to work with a lesbian couple had no problem making cakes for divorce parties and stem cell research celebrations.

BY JASE PEEPLES MAY 30 2013 1:45 PM ET

 63

 

Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa grabbed national headlines after the business owners refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year because they claimed same-sex marriage conflicted with their religious beliefs.

 

However, two undercover reporters from Portland alternative weekly paper Willamette Week discovered the bakery operators were happy to bake goods for celebrations of other things conservatives traditionally scorn, including parties for divorce, a pagan solstice, and stem cell research.

 

When one of the reporters called and asked if the business could make two identical cakes to help a friend celebrate the grant she received for cloning human stem cells, a Sweet Cakes employee simply laughed and said, “It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start.”

 

A request for a cake to congratulate a friend on her divorce was also happily accepted, with a Sweet Cakes worker saying, “We can definitely do something like that.”

 

Sweet Cakes was even happy to take orders for cakes for a pagan summer solstice fete — complete with a green pentagram decoration — and celebrating babies born out of wedlock.

 

The Oregon Equality Act, which was passed in 2007, prohibits businesses in the state from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Yet Sweet Cakes owner Aaron Klein says his religion should exempt him from the state’s law. "I believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God," he told NBC News in February. However, while Oregon continues to investigate the situation, Sweet Cakes may find it harder to use religion as an excuse for discrimination now that Willamette Week has highlighted the hypocrisy of the bakery’s policies.

 

[jwhitlock]

As further PROOF that this bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding was nothing more than bigoted behavior and NOT some kind of violation of their christian beliefs, 

 

Here is the link to the article

 

One does wonder if there's another side of the story to this. I've found that newspapers are notoriously ineffective in portraying what really happened. That there doesn't seem to be any consistency with how their "Christian" beliefs were applied seems to indicate at least a possibility that there was something else involved in the situation, especially since they had sold to the couple before.

 

I personally think it's bad business not to sell something in a typical, reasonable business situation. However, I do know of situations where there has been a refusal to sell for a very good reason, and the aggrieved party claimed discrimination - which wasn't the real reason.

[jwhitlock]

I don't see the connection between the topic of this thread and the points raise, other than attempting to change the subject from anti-discrimination laws to a perceived sense of being a victim of lawless picketing.

Even so, I am unaware of any "judges" "giving a free pass" to any illegal behaviors in California.

I'm a bit perplexed by your comment that you would be happy to review any links I provide on the subject, since that is your assertion, not mine.

I am definitely opposed to any illegal activities, including vandalism or "free passes" from judges.

Daniel

 

The intent of my post was to point out how SSM supporters are often very glad to trumpet claims of discrimination in cases like this, while simultaneously downplaying same very negative actions on their side against those who disagree with them. And they seem to get a way with the latter more often than claimed Christians win when they are accused of discrimination.

 

Since it's fairly evident from the posts here that most, if not all, of us would NOT have a problem selling a cake to a gay couple for a wedding, one does wonder what you're really trying to get at with this OP.

[jwhitlock]

Yes.

 

I believe people/businesses should be free from coercion to sell a product or service. Most of the time, money is a sufficient motivator to overcome irrational prejudices. When it isn't, there is always another vendor. Do I want to buy a taco from someone who thinks he shouldn't because of my sexual preference? No. If someone has such strong principles that they are willing to lose money for it, they should be free to do so. I'll find a taco from someone who isn't crazy enough against me to refuse my money.

 

By their very nature, anti-discrimination laws are very subjective, based on the agenda or whims of the legislature passing them and the judges enforcing, or not enforcing, them. There are all kinds of laws given, with all kinds of reasoning behind them, governing rules for what can't be sold or can be sold, and what can be refused to be sold. Some have reasons that I would agree with, that are for the public safety, such as refusing to sell alcohol to certain people. However, when anti-discrimination laws are applied to transactions outside of those having an impact on public safety or the general well-being of the populace, or outside of those that leave a person with no alternative to acquire a necessity (food, medicine, etc.), there is probably very little justification for demanding that a "public" business be required to sell its wares or services to anyone without question.

 

I agree with you that under those circumstances, a person should be allowed to determine who they will sell to. As you noted, competition has a way of rectifying such situations where the seller is just being bigoted, and in the past, that was the way it worked. People banded together and developed an alternative to the offending business owner and went their own way. Having a judge mandating the rules for how a person can sell things in a business where there is plenty of competition is somewhere I don't think we want to go.

 

Should I be required to sell a computer to or service it for a known anti-Mormon when I suspect that person will use it to attack my church? Should I be required to open my business on Sunday because it "discriminates" against non-Christians? Should I not be allowed to give a discount at a restaurant to people who come in with a church service bulletin if I have such a promotion? Should I be required to sell hard alcohol to people proffering food stamps? There's a long list of intrusions by the government into business transactions solely in the name of "discrimination"; they occur with some regularity where I live. Such intrusions are ultimately more harmful than the things they are supposedly trying to fix.

 

I especially wouldn't buy a cake from someone who didn't want to sell it to me. If I get a judge to force them to sell me a cake, then I certainly wouldn't want to eat it, especially if they were smiling at me when they delivered the cake they were forced to make for me. If someone doesn't want my business out of plain bigotry, then I'm more than glad to take my business elsewhere and not deal with them. Things work out better in the end that way.

 

On the other hand, requiring a business to sell to people who are just going to make trouble for them is just as dishonorable as being a bigot is. Such things have a way of lashing back at you in an unexpected way. If I know that a potential customer has a tendency to sue for any little thing they perceive is wrong in the transaction, then I'm going to need to have the right to refuse to sell to them. Unfortunately, anti-discrimination laws don't differentiate between situations of bigotry and legitimate refusals to sell, which makes them problematic.

 

And who is to say that there wasn't something more to the bakery's decision not to sell in this case, especially since they had sold to them before?

[california boy]

The intent of my post was to point out how SSM supporters are often very glad to trumpet claims of discrimination in cases like this, while simultaneously downplaying same very negative actions on their side against those who disagree with them. And they seem to get a way with the latter more often than claimed Christians win when they are accused of discrimination.

 

Since it's fairly evident from the posts here that most, if not all, of us would NOT have a problem selling a cake to a gay couple for a wedding, one does wonder what you're really trying to get at with this OP.

boycotting is completely different than refusing service. 

[jwhitlock]

boycotting is completely different than refusing service. 

 

You'll note that I was referring to actions that did harm to the business or that intimidated people. Do you consider such actions to be more acceptable than refusing service?

[Calm]

I especially wouldn't buy a cake from someone who didn't want to sell it to me. If I get a judge to force them to sell me a cake, then I certainly wouldn't want to eat it, especially if they were smiling at me when they delivered the cake they were forced to make for me. If someone doesn't want my business out of plain bigotry, then I'm more than glad to take my business elsewhere and not deal with them. Things work out better in the end that way.

Having been refused service simply because I was American, I did not have the least wish to stay one minute longer in the presence of someone who obviously hated me just for existing. There is a good chance that if I had appealed to the manager, I would have been served quite promptly...the American dollar at the time more than compensating for most Russians' prejudice and there is a good chance that woman could have lost her job if the manager found out how much revenue she cost him...especially since it was unlikely we were the first Americans to cross her path....though possibly among the first hundred or so and there was certainly thousands to follow providing a potentially substantial increase in that store's revenue.

It was shocking and very disturbing to be the target of such hate, but it never occurred to me that her hate would diminish if she was forced to serve us. Quite the opposite in fact I would say. The only reason I would have for insisting would be for revenge....and I am not that kind of individual.

[california boy]

You'll note that I was referring to actions that did harm to the business or that intimidated people. Do you consider such actions to be more acceptable than refusing service?

From a legal point of view, yes.  And so do the courts.  It is why the bakery is loosing.  Businesses require a license to operate.  They do so under certain restrictions as an agreement for that license.  Boycotting is not a licensed activity.  Like I said, they are two completely different things.

 

I am not easily intimidated.  I have crossed many picket lines.  It doesn't bother me in the least if I feel the picket lines are unjustified.  On the other hand, when I personally feel that the picketers have a legitimate reason for boycotting, I am more than willing to boycott along with them.  In this case, I feel like the bakery has NO legitimate claim since their actions have nothing to do with following the teachings of Christ and in addition they are breaking the agreement they made to receive a business license.  I hope the judgement against them is enforced and in addition I would certainly boycott their business if it hadn't closed.  

[Daniel2]

As further PROOF that this bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding was nothing more than bigoted behavior and NOT some kind of violation of their christian beliefs,

Here is the link to the article

And from a similar case...

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado Bakery, Agrees To 'Dog Wedding' Cake Despite Turning Away Gays

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3392013/

06/05/13 04:33 PM ET

A Colorado bakery that refused to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple is once again in the headlines after being exposed in another same-sex pair's experiment.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reports that Stephanie Schmalz opted to conduct the experiment when she was told that Masterpiece Cakeshop had a strict policy against selling cakes for same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies. Schmalz had been seeking cupcakes for her forthcoming commitment ceremony to her partner Jeanine.

After being turned away, Schmalz called the bakery and told owner Jack Phillips that she was planning to host a wedding celebration for two dogs. She told him that the "dog wedding" cake should be decorated with the names "Roscoe" and "Buffy." Phillips then quoted her a price and asked how soon she needed it,according to the ACLU report.

Schmalz's experiment is similar to that conducted by an alternative weekly paper in Oregon at Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a Gresham, Ore. bakery whose owner Aaron Klein cited religious principles in his refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding. When a Willamette Week reporter requested cakes for a "pagan solstice party," as well as a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple children out of wedlock, a Sweet Cakes employeereportedly agreed to take the orders.

In 2012, Phillips told local CBS affilate KCNC-TV that he has no problem with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) customers or staff members, but nonetheless does not support gay marriage, when he refused to bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

Arguing that he who rather "close down the bakery" than "compromise our beliefs," Phillips said at the time, "If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It's just the wedding cake -- not the people, not their lifestyle."

The ACLU also points out that Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop broke the law by discriminating against Mullins and Craig, which prompted the Attorney General's office to file a formal complaint against the bakery this week.

[california boy]

And from a similar case...

 

Well like I said, these people are not followers of Christ's teachings.  They try and use religion to justify their bigotry.  It has been going on for centuries.