Comments about ‘Oregon will oversee settlement process between Christian bakers, lesbian couple’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 28 2014 6:10 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Glendale, AZ

...And so instead of just taking their business and purse (or wallet?) somewhere else, they decide to sue the baker. This sounds just spiteful. Just like the rest of the radical SSM activists. They do not fight for "tolerance" since they show none. They only fight for "their way or the highway." If I do not like the way a business conducts itself, I just go somewhere else. It is the right of that business to be jerks if they want (not that the bakers are, I'm not saying that), but to sue them for it? Now if a business ripped someone off, that is grounds for a lawsuit and action by the government. I hope the Supreme Court will eventually get involved. The First Amendment is being attacked in so many ways.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

George Orwell noted cynically "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal."

Today, we have the gay rights activists demanding their "special" equality and will terrorize any who dare stand up to it.

Maybe they can force the bakers to make a cake. But the bakers may just have a bad day and not make a very good one, and then they will probably get sued again.


Stephen Daedalus
Arvada, CO

U.S. Supreme Court has been there and done that:

"When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity." United States v Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982)

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate." Employ. Div v Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990)

Like Masterpiece Bakery in Colorado, this is plain-vanilla enforcement of a state anti-discrimination statute by a state agency.

If you are an Oregon resident or business owner and disagree with the outcome, work to change the law to remove sexual orientation as a protected class. Likewise for Colorado. Or move to a state like Utah where this sort of protection is simply not provided to LGBT consumers.

Just don't kid yourself or others that the U.S. Constitution will exonerate a OR or CO business breaking these laws. It won't.

Old Enuf
Salt lake, UT

No problem. Allow all businesses to discriminate against any group if they first, register their religious exemption and which group(s) they'd like to not serve when they apply for their business license. Second, clearly post it on the front of their establishment and on their website. (No gays served, no blacks served, no mormons served, whatever) With this, gays could avoid the embarrassment of being turned away without service and I could avoid supporting a business model that I don't agree with. Let the market take care of it from there. I have faith in the good people of Utah and believe that they wouldn't support discrimination at large. Problem solved.

Salt Lake City, UT

"So much for American freedom. A business should have the freedom to serve whom they want whether you agree with it or not."
That is a stunning statement, worf. Do you really believe a business shouldn't serve Blacks, Hispanics, Irish, or Chinese? I thought we'd gotten past that.

Mrs T
Coalville, UT

Isn't interesting that a business would be punished for trying to uphold the state law of gay marriage not being legal or recognized in Oregon and perpetuating or aiding and abetting illegal activity of their clients blatant disrespect of State law. Just a thought.

Murray, UT

This baker didn't refuse service because they were homosexual. She refused to make a cake for a ceremony. It was the ceremony she discriminated against. That is legal. Ceremonies don't have non-discrimination rights. I have no doubt she would have baked them a birthday cake (unless she is Jehovah Witness, they don't believe in celebrating birthdays).

In fact, for those of us who believe marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman, SSM is mocking our religion.

Should a homosexual baker be required to bake for a rally mocking homosexuals?

Kaysville, UT

It sounds like the Kleins are being discriminated against.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT


a better question is:
do you think feminist bookstores should be forced to sell porn?
kosher delis should be forced to sell bacon?
the Utah pride center should be forced to stock ex-gay literature?

Brigham City, UT

The Constitution will not solve all your problems, neither will the law suit.

Northern Utah, UT

Should we force a Jewish Deli to serve pork? Or a Muslim Deli to serve alcohol? Forcing ANYONE to go against their moral convictions for a business deal is silly and against our rights as Americans. If the tables were turned and someone forced a LGBT business to make a cake or take pictures of an "anti-gay rally" many on the other side would begin screaming about rights. Somehow in our country if you are a Christian with morals and values it equates to hate-mongering....I don't get it! What is often left off of this story is this company offered to make a "birthday cake" but refused to put items on it with anything regarding marriage. The lesbian couple did this just to make a point at the expense of someone who did not agree with their lifestyle.

Laura M

The issue here is not denying service to people whose morals you don't agree with. The article plainly states that the gay couple were already customers of this bakery, so the bakery must have been selling them products in the past. The issue here is that the bakery did not want to participate in a gay marriage ceremony. By baking a cake specifically for the wedding, the owners of the bakery must have felt that they would have been taking part in and contributing to a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs. Certainly someone who believes gay marriage to be against their religion should not be forced to participate in the ceremony themselves. Why did the gay couple not just go to another bakery for their cake? Why would they even want someone to bake it for them who did not want to do so. Their tactics of the LBGT activists in this instance are nothing but bullying, plain and simple.

Salt Lake City, UT

For the LDS commenters who disagree with the Oregon court's decision, whatever happened to "We believe in . . . obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"? (12th article of faith) Does it only apply when one is fighting illegal immigrants? Does it say you can pick and choose which law to obey, honor, and sustain? Does it allow for civil disobedience? Does it make an exception for laws that offend one's religious sensibilties?

When the law says a commercial baker can't refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, why isn't that a law that should be obeyed, honored, and sustained?

Bountiful, UT

Does this cake company also refuse to bake cakes for women getting married who have divorced? That is also forbidden in the bible.

Monsieur le prof
Sandy, UT

Why didn't the couple just go somewhere else? Were their feelings hurt? Is there no other bakery in town? No, they just want to make a big stink and cause hurt to those who disagree with their sexual predilections. It's very typical of this group who want everyone to accept them, but are intolerant towards those with differing opinions.
I think a business should be able to decide what clientele they wish to serve (within reason).

Old Enuf
Salt lake, UT


If your comment was directed at my previous post. Fine, business should post (no gay weddings serviced, no inter-racial weddings serviced, no mormon weddings serviced, whatever) Same solution and I suspect, same result. Business should not be allowed to hide their bigotry and only bring it out when their victims are present. Knowledge is power. Let the market prevail.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

I like the placard I saw on the wall of a shoe repair shop in Ogden some years back—


Like these bakers, I do custom work too. I'd be happy to cater most anyone! Even if the freakin' cake cost them $10,000!

Burley, ID

"All businesses in the country have the right to refuse service to anyone, especially if it would violate personal religious views to do so." - Avenue

"So much for American freedom. A business should have the freedom to serve whom they want whether you agree with it or not." - Worf

Sorry, but both of you are wrong. Why? Because under those terms a business owner could refuse service for any reason to anyone simply by saying, "It violates my religious beliefs."

If you're serving the "public" you can't deny service to someone just because you believe it violates your religious beliefs. Doing so, violates both state and federal laws as Stephen Daedalus has so aptly shown (see his posting above).

It's a simplistic in nature, but what the law boils down to is if you provide a service or product for one person publicly, then you must do the same for all.

The way to get around the law would be to serve only an exclusive clientele. One that is not open to the public. But to avoid running afoul of the law, you better be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Burley, ID

"Should we force a Jewish Deli to serve pork? Or a Muslim Deli to serve alcohol?" - trueconservative

That's a false argument. Jewish and Muslim Delis don't serve pork or alcohol. If they did, then yes, they would have to serve everyone who asked for pork or alcohol (minors excluded in the case of alcohol). Why? Because they are an establishment that is open to the public.

"This baker didn't refuse service because they were homosexual. She refused to make a cake for a ceremony. It was the ceremony she discriminated against. That is legal. Ceremonies don't have non-discrimination rights." - Badgerbadger

Another bad argument. Ceremonies don't have rights as you stated, but the gay couple does. And they were the ones who were asking that a cake be baked for them. So, it's their rights (as members of the public which the baker was serving) that were violated under the law.

Please read Stephen Daedalus' post (above) and you'll see that the courts have already ruled against discrimination on religious grounds, by those who choose to engage in commercial activities i.e., ones that serve the public at large.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

The anti-constitutionalist religious groups in America are being served notice that their bigotry and discrimination is illegal under the constitution. The anti's must understand that no amount of religious rationalization makes their position right or legal in America.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments