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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
techpubs
Sioux City, IA

The issue does not seem to be refusing to bake them a cake because from the articles I have read the couple had purchased cakes from them before.

The refusal came about when they requested that the baker utilize her artistic talent to provide them with a very distinctive cake for their wedding. And while it is one thing to deliver a cake with plain design it is a different situation when you use your talents to provide a "signature cake".

Jim
Mesa, Az

Let me get this right , the lgbt community want to boycott anyone or any company that does business withe the bakery? Isn't that the same as one person sins and they are wroth with the whole congregation? Where does it stop? The gas company that provides gas for trucks, the farmers that provide wheat for flour, the power company for power... And the list goes on. It kind of puts new meaning on the words let them eat cake

AttilaTheHun
Nephi, UT

Easy peasy. The bakery needs to graciously accept their order, bake them a delicious cake, and inform them all proceeds from that order will go as a donation towards an organization dedicated to preserving traditional marriage. Win win. The gays get their cake ( and a chance to prove that they as well believe freedom of expression is a two way street) and the baker gets to put some money toward a cause they support.

So riddle me this- if in this scenario the lesbians decide to withdraw their order, would they then be sanctioned for violating equal treatment laws? I mean they deprived a hard working business profit based on their belief system.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

Continuing on Christopher B's comments, if they did decide not to service a couple because they had sexual relations before marriage, that is in fact their right. Businesses in the United States are private, not state, entities. It's seldom in a business's best interest to be terribly picky about customers, but they do hold the innate right not to serve a given person for whatever reason, no less than you or I have in not admitting any given person into our homes at their own whim if we don't want them there.

When people tell me that those trying to change marriage are the "victims", that we're the "bullies", or that changing marriage "doesn't affect us", this and many similar incidents come to mind, and serve as a grave discredit to the efforts of those who genuinely think they're striving for "equality" or "rights".

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@trueconservative and @counter intelligence: "Should we force a Jewish Deli to serve pork? Or a Muslim Deli to serve alcohol?" "do you think feminist bookstores should be forced to sell porn?"

Those examples aren't analogous to what happened in this case. The bakery wasn't asked to make and sell a product they don't normally sell.

The business in question was asked to provide the same product to a lesbian couple as they had provided to countless heterosexual couples. They refused on the basis of the customers' identity.

If I run a coffee shop I can't put up a sign that says "No Mormons" or "No Irish Need Apply."

The idea that they object to the wedding as an activity not the fact that its gay people in the wedding is a distinction without a difference.

morpunkt
Glendora, CA

The radical wing of the gay rights movement has proven time and time again to be ultimately vengeful. One need look no further than the example of the Church of England for refusing to marry a gay couple. Many moderate gays thought this would never happen. Well, take a second look.

Stephen Daedalus
Arvada, CO

The Oregon (and CO) statute cannot force any business to sell products/services they don't already or want to sell.

However it -can- penalize the business for refusing to sell the same products/services it routinely sells the general public to members of defined protected classes. The shirtless, shoeless, or obnoxious are not protected classes, nor is KKK. Religion is however, so under these laws, a Mormon couple cannot be refused a wedding-style cake for their sealing ceremony, on any basis, including the business owner's feelings about LDS.

In cake example, the literal message or decoration requested by anyone (even a protected class) can be rejected on 1st Amend grounds in certain circumstances, but not a generic request. For example, LGBT couple asking for 'flowers' on cake is fine, but a request for a quote like "Jesus is okay with the gay" may be refused.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

...and thus we see how same sex marriage, once again, violates the right of conscience and religious freedom.

Macfarren
Dallas, TX

We now live in a country where the government forces consumers to buy products that they specify, and forces business to create and sell those same products whether or not either party is interested in doing so. Refusal to follow the new government dictations results significant financial penalties, forced 'counseling' or inevitably, jail time for those who refuse.

Whether it is government-institute health care plans, or privately produced wedding services it is the same. We have now entered a new era of tyrannical invasion of personal agency which is far more dangerous than what the NSA is doing with our phone records.

Those who cry "Pro Choice" when it comes to abortion, are those that leave no choice at all in the remainder of matters.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I would not eat a cake baked by my enemy.

TheBleak
West Jordan, UT

I agree that the government should not have anything to do with this, seeing as how their decision not to bake the cake is based solely off of religious beliefs. This is not discrimination, they are trying to live their religion which is based on the bible which clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. It is domination of the government and going against our constitution to force them to do something that they do not feel comfortable with.

For those thinking the bakers are in the wrong, please, to support your argument, give me only three simple examples that illustrate why it is okay for the government or popular/trendy opinion to force someone to do something that they are uncomfortable with.

...

I agree, there are none! To do so would be abuse!
It is pathetic that they are attacked for their beliefs and right to run their business as they see fit.

For those that might find themselves in a similar situation at some point in time, my advice is to charge triple or more for the service, and let them fork out or move along.
Save yourself the assault of the easily offended and hipsters.

Southernmiss
kaysville, UT

It's against the law for this couple to marry in Oregon . So there's no need for a "wedding" cake in the first place!

And why are the courts there taking on the expense of this case when it's not even legal? Because of pressure from the lesbian and gay community to make a social statement. They look like they are bullying businesses.

If I were the bakery owners, and I was being "tested" or threatened I wouldn't provide the service either.

On the other hand, if someone came in to my place of business and placed an order without incident, I would fill their order and gladly take their payment.

lindaj72
salt lake city, UT

In response to Techpubs I was reminded of an incident that occurred many years ago. I was working in a law office and a surprise birthday party was given to an attorney where only part of the firm were invited. The cake that was served was the shape of a nude woman correct in every way. Everyone laughed, although some seemed nervous. I felt it very offensive and demeaning. I have often wondered about the baker and bakery that made this cake. Did they feel they had to make this cake because the order came from a very large and powerful law firm? Had upper management known about this cake being served in their firm during business hours, what would have been their response? Just saying - maybe it was the design of the cake, not the cake itself that the bakers were opposed to. I believe that makes it a game changer. What if someone asked for a cake decorated in a way that was demeaning to the Jewish community or a cake that was racially slurred against African Americans?

johnnylingo62
Gray, TN

This is a Commerce case - not an "Anti-Discrimination Case". Money is going to exchange hands for a "Product" or "Service". In Commerce, the Buyer has a choice of many Sellers. They can freely purchase from whatever Seller is willing to offer them a product/service at a price and quality they can afford. Money does not discriminate. The Lesbian couple - if this goes to Arbitration, should be FORCED to buy ALL their future baked goods from only Melissa's Bakery if Melissa is FORCED to sell to them - and Melissa should be able to charge them AS MUCH AS SHE WANTS for price, and add or remove whatever ingredients she may decide, and the Lesbian couple should then be Obligated to pay without any claim of poor quality or unsatisfactory customer service. Does this make any sense?
This case is not about Anti-Discrimination and should not be treated as such.
Price, Quality, and Service gets my money.

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

Imagine the comments on this if the baker had refused to serve Mormons.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

If the bakery were asked to make a wedding cake of the same type that they typically sell to the public, then to refuse because the customers are gay or lesbian would be a violation of Oregon's anti-discrimination law.

But what if the couple had requested a cake with a design that the bakery does not normally do, such as decorating it with figures of a same sex couple? Could the bakery decline on the grounds that such a cake is not within their product line ("Sorry, we don't make that kind of cake")? In hindsight, the bakery may have had more success with that line of argument, than to base the decision on the sexual orientation of the customers.

Or could the bakery charge a premium rate, or even a prohibitively high rate, say $100,000, for accepting an order for a specialty item ("We'd be happy to make that kind of cake, but it will cost you extra--a lot extra")? No law prohibits what an enterprise may charge for a custom job.

Hindsight teaches that there may be more than one way to skin a cat.

That's A Good One
Salt Lake City, UT

Stephen Daedalus, after sifting through 3 pages of largely apples and oranges comparisons, thank you sir for a comment that spells out very eloquently the circumstances and makes perfect sense. You got a "Like" from me.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

From DN article "The LGBT community threatened to boycott any company that did business with Sweet Melissa.

"The power of the purse, combined with publicity and the threat that brings with it, has wonderful powers of motivation for business owners who don’t want to be known as anti-equality," wrote Jean Ann Esselink. "The LGBT community should remember the tactics used against Melissa’s Sweet Cakes when faced with the many other acts of blatant discrimination that are sure to throw up roadblocks as LGBT equality bumps along in fits and starts across America."

Another example where the gay community believes they can bully people going against their concience - how sad!

Just a thought - I wonder what would happen if the heterosexual community decided to boycott gay businesses in Oregon?

oragami
St. George, UT

What happens when the majority in this state start to be refused services by business owners who feel that serving Mormons would violate their religious sensibilities or conscience?

I'll take a wild guess.........They will switch roles quickly and play the victim with aplomb (as they are known to do when it serves their interests and egos).

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Freedom of religion must not be allowed to extend to business operation. Business should not be allowed to use the economic power of their business to further their religion, so far as the business activities are concerned. Freedom of religion for the individual requires that the freedom of religion of organizations be limited.

Individuals, including business operations owners, can indicate their preference of belief in all the ways permitted by law. On the private property of their body and their buildings and facilities of business. However they cannot/should not perform certain actions effecting other people that are contrary to civil law even though their religion says they can.

Business operations that feel the need to discriminate contrary to civil law, can display their preference of customers within the confines of their private area. Upon seeing such a posting, real Americans should respect the feelings of the owner and avoid trampling on the feelings of the owner. However in the end, the civil law must take precedence.

The LGBT would do better for their cause of being excepted into our society by making friends rather than enemies

to comment

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