Oregon bakery shuts down after gay rights attacks

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • FifthGenMormon Snowflake, AZ
    Nov. 11, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    It's ashamed that the bakery chose to close its doors rather than reach out to customers with an apology for its mistake. While businesses may be able to legally deny service to certain customers, it isn't always a good business decision. In my opinion, the bakery was rightfully held accountable to the community for its discrimination against gays. While I don't condone the mean-spirited behavior cited in the article, I think the bakery must accept the closure as the consequence of its inability to meet the demands of the market in which it operated. Perhaps they should consider a move to Uganda, where they impose the death penalty for homosexuality.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Oct. 22, 2013 6:27 a.m.

    I disagree with this article. There was no attack. The husband of the shop insulted and degraded the couple wanting the cake. What he did was not in compliance of having a business license in Washington. They shut down their shop because their bigotry hurt their business. The couple ended up having a beautiful cake made by a famous baker from the east coast and they had a second cake of a beautiful peacock. Their wedding was a success and they are very happy.

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    Sept. 19, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Accountants, attorneys, etal have the right to refuse to take on a client that doesn't meet their expectations. Why should any other business be any different. Just like the photographer incident in NM, why would anyone want a person with adverse feelings about their views playing a big part in the most important day of his/her life? The results might be less than optimal and bitter feelings do not spread good vibes. This couple should just choose somebody who is more in line with their views. No doubt, there are other bakeries in the area.

    The gay community does harm to their cause by using strong armed tactics. Sure they can put one bakery out of business. But alas, they have also made a lot of people angry. If they want their views to be respected, then they need to show respect for the views of people who feel differently. Tolerance and compassion need to go both directions.

  • earthquakejake Logan, UT
    Sept. 15, 2013 10:29 p.m.

    this really doesn't make gays look good at all.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 15, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    I see signs in business' all the time that say they reserve the right to refuse service for anything The don't need a reason.

  • Eded kaysvile, UT
    Sept. 15, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    I applaud this couple and hope them the best for standing for what they feel is right!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 15, 2013 9:21 a.m.


    jrp7sen: Business have the right to refuse service to anyone. They do it all the time


    You forget. By obtaining a business license, this bakery agreed to abide by all regulations, including regulations concerning discrimination, that had been or were in the future enacted. hen they obtained the business license, there was a regulation providing that discrimination based on sexual orientation as illegal. By obtaining their business license, they agreed that they would not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

    Part of their business was to bake and provide wedding cakes. Since they provided cakes for receptions for "straight" marriages, they legally could not discriminate by refusing to provide cakes for receptions for "gay" marriages. That is de facto discrimination based on sexual orientation, and consequently illegal.

    It should be noted that their so-called "religion-based" refusal to provide cases to celebrate gay marriages was hypocritical. They were also contacted to provide cakes to celebrate a multitude of events which would violate their religion. All of THOSE requests were responded to positively, with price quotes. All of those events were gross violations of their religion, but they would provide cakes for THEM.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 14, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    jrp7sen: Business have the right to refuse service to anyone. They do it all the time

  • Cindy Kepler Salem, OR
    Sept. 14, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    Religion is CHOICE. A learned behaviour and belief.

  • Cindy Kepler Salem, OR
    Sept. 14, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    Here is a great analogy for you that would both provoke thought and also be illegal in Oregon. You own a convenience store. A pregnant woman walks in to purchase cigarettes. You have a moral problem against pregnant women smoking and doing harm to their child, you refuse. You have just violated the law. As horrible and repugnant as you find her smoking you have no legal right to impose your beliefs on her. You are selling them to anyone and everyone else, but not her, discrimination. *assuming you are understanding that she is of legal age so please no comments about how she has to be of legal age* This is exactly the same as the baker even if you don't want to accept it. Product for sale, issue with morals, refusal, violation. Oh and the women didn't file a lawsuit. They filed a complaint with a state agency.

  • Cindy Kepler Salem, OR
    Sept. 14, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    Counter Intelligence:
    Some simple answers. The bookstore that doesn't sell certain books, just doesn't sell the book. They don't have it, they won't get it and they don't sell it to anyone. Your question would have merit if the bookstore had it but would only sell it to certain people for certain things.
    A deli that doesn't sell Kosher is the same as above, they don't sell it to anyone, so they are not discriminating.
    This baker should just have not sold wedding cakes knowing that they had an issue with gay weddings. That is the only scenario that matches your previous queries.

    They sold wedding cakes but refused to sell one to this couple. And this for other posters is not a service. It is a product.

  • Cindy Kepler Salem, OR
    Sept. 14, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Oregon law is clear, and was in place when Sweet Cakes opened their doors. Our only recourse to laws we disagree with are changing them, not violating them.

    This bakery did this to themselves. I feel no pity for them. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of whom it doing it or why. We all need to take care of each other and promote our strengths not use our differences against each other.

    By the way, these were not militant/mafia actions. A boycott is a is a boycott, and calling vendors that the bakery worked with and letting them know that Oregonians don't want this type of discrimination is worthy and done all over our world for a variety of reasons. Breaking legs, extortion, robbery and vandalism are militant and mafia tactics.

    This bakery didn't like "us" voting with our dollars, which is what drove them out of business. All of the defenders should have stood side by side and frequented the bakery to keep them afloat. Their own supporters turned their backs on them/

  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    Sept. 14, 2013 11:25 a.m.


    It is the law. You must serve the PUBLIC. That includes gays and lesbians. If you have a permit to run a business, then you MUST serve everyone.

    Besides, Jesus and God NEVER said you should stop serving your fellow man. We are taught that divorce is wrong, but we don't refuse service to those who have had a divorce, that is silly.

    WAKE UP MORMONS. Thank you.

    /signed an active Mormon millennial.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Sept. 13, 2013 7:59 p.m.

    Western Oregon is a hotbed of trendy liberal thinking, just as Utah is a hotbed of trendy conservative thinking. The bakery owners might consider relocating to eastern Oregon or Idaho. I can't see why the reaction to their standing their ground in the Portland area would surprise anyone who knows the culture there. I've never been able to understand why people live in Utah and complain endlessly about Mormons. I've lived in 11 states and all regions of the country, and I've learned that it's a lot easier to change locations than local culture.

  • zabivka Orem, UT
    Sept. 13, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights, but I think that it does them a disservice to try to force things too much. Rather than attack, I think they should roll with the tide of ever-increasing support that is already coming their way, and ignore those who see things differently.

    While I understand how dangerous it can be to look the other way on this issue, and I realize that if a business wants to be open to the public it "should" offer its services to all people, I think its a poor long-term move to be on the attack like this.

  • BigBuddha Chandler, AZ
    Sept. 13, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    WORF-- Just bake the cake and collect your money..it's just that simple

  • BigBuddha Chandler, AZ
    Sept. 13, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    WOW-- that was a pretty expensive cake that they didn't bake

  • Kaileo Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 13, 2013 12:23 a.m.

    Religious rights activists (as many Mormons seem to fancy themselves) need to remember that they can't discriminate against someone based on their race, and that orientation is likewise protected. Oh, but you claim (however erroneously) that orientation is a choice, so it's not the same?

    Well, religion is a choice... and we're not allowed to discriminate on that basis!

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Sept. 12, 2013 11:54 p.m.

    @parkcity aggie

    That's why they have higher courts and an apeal process... Losing it in OR matters not if the USSC accepts the case... Then it will be out of the hands of the state couts of OR...

    Even if Justice Kennedy were to join with the 4 Justices of the Left, the ruling can eventually be overturned through another case (perhaps from a more conservative State like Texas) if the court should lean farther right... and I believe that day is coming.

    One can only hope.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    A bakery can refuse to bake obscene or other types of cakes. Civil Rights don't require bakeries to make all types of cakes. The bakery could choose to not make weddings cakes for anybody--but sell other types of cakes. They could also hire staff to set up the cake at same-sex weddings. Could they have side-stepped the issue by simply saying, "we aren't able to accommodate that date?

    The bottom line is, they broke the law in Oregon. Choices have consequences.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:51 p.m.

    @Irony Guy, pragmatistforlife, atl134

    fair enough
    but perhaps our differences are semantics:

    So please explain: If a feminist owned bookstore refuses to sell playboy (even though they sell other magazines) can men claim to be discriminated against?
    If a Christian bookstore does not sell the Book of Mormon - are they anti-Mormon?
    If a African American bookstore refuses to special order the biography of David Duke, are they inherently anti-white?

    You have so broadly defined civil rights laws, that a deli who does not make kosher products would qualify as anti-Semitic.

    There is No indication that the owners refused service because the patrons were gat (indeed apparently they were previous customers) - they simply don't produce gay themed products - big difference

    (although I would argue that being gay is NOT like race or gender but that is for another day)

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    SAS: Why then can business put up signs that say they have reserve the righ to refuse service to anyone. I (being a frequent visitor to Oregon)have seen these signs in business of all kinds. I went to Kmart to buy shoes for my child. My child was not allowed in the store because she did not have shoes on. I have seen resturants In, Utah and Oregon that have signs that say no shirt, no shoes, no service.

  • birder Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:26 p.m.

    I think that some members of the LGBT community are out for more than just equal rights. Some seem to want to force their opinions on everyone else. That is wrong. By way of comparison, one thing I appreciate about LDS Church leaders is that they do not attack those they disagree with. You won't go to an LDS church and find Sunday School classes on how to put down other religions like you will in some other churches.

    Like others have stated, if you don't like the opinions of one business, don't do business with them. Just go elsewhere. Give your money to businesses who want your money. This wouldn't be complicated if it weren't for the agenda of the gay rights activists.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:46 p.m.

    @ Lane Meyer:

    "I think the best way to explain this is, have they ever made an obscese cake for someone else? Or a racist cake? If they have, they need to do it for everyone.

    "Had they made a wedding cake for others? Yes. Now they would not do so for a gay couple. That is what makes it discrimination under the law."

    You have misunderstood me, and my point. First, I mean to say that a baker's (or photographer's) *personal* views may come into play here. It would depend entirely on what the baker of photographer personally considered to be obscene or racist, not necessarily what the customer thought. (The law, I understand, is vague on both accounts.)

    Second, a wedding cake (and other personalized baked goods--similar to photography) is less a public offering than a personal statement. If the bakery made cakes that looked like wedding cakes, made them available in public display cases, and sold them to everyone but same-gender couples, then there might be an issue. But a custom-made cake is quite different; it is at least as much an expression of the baker as it is the couple.

  • Random Redlands, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    We were promised this wouldn't happen in California. I'm sorry to hear the bakery went out of business.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    The story is full of exaggerations, half-truths, and whining by the baker.

    The truth is that Gays are a small minority and could not damage their business if the public sentiment was not with them -- the current "Christian" way of justifying discrimination is to compare the Gays to terrorists, etc -- just complete nonsense.

    Yes, turning them down is illegal in Oregon. I believe that the issue became so polarized because certain churches forced a referendum in WA ( Southern WA, right across the river is in the Porland TV market) after marriage equality easily passed the Legislature in the spring of 2012. Money and effort were spent saying terrible things about Gays, particularly in some of those churches.

    My guess is that if the baker had said nicely "I'm sorry, my heart would not be in it, but I can't legally say no", the brides might have gone elsewhere. It is not necessary say something like "We are Christians, we don't believe in that" Too many times, we hear harsh words from "Christians" who think we are not Christians, since we believe a different version of Christianity.

  • beagal West Valley City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    Force is Satanic! As I recall, that preexistence approach was vetoed! In addition to the attacks this and other businesses have received, there is indeed, a scuttling of the owners' freedoms.
    This is not the American I remember as a child.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 12, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    Just go somewhere else and get your cake!

    It's just that simple.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Sept. 12, 2013 4:22 p.m.


    "It will be those who are LDS, Catholic and Baptist who will one day be the biggest target of bullies in public schools. It will be religious buildings and conservative businesses which will be targeted for violence. And freedom of speech will more and more turn into, "You can speak just as long as it is 100% PC."

    LDS, Catholic and Baptist; that is a huge voting block. Now if we could just put aside our religious differences and unite for a common cause and get Islamic people on board whose views on gay marriage are similar, politicians would take notice.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Sept. 12, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    So isn't in interesting how ONLY religious persons are "bigots or discrimatory". I guess you have never been in any minority neighborhood. Do you really believe a white guy is going to be treated the same walking into a black barber shop or some other minority owned business that mostly does business with their own minority.

    You think that religious people have a monopoly on discrimination? It is perfectly fine maybe in a minority neighborhood because maybe you weren't going to go their anyways right?

    Some people have just been watching / listening to tooooo much liberal media.

    Christ loved the sinner not the sin. He said "go and sin no more" You can love someone but not be supportive of their choices. I know it is hard for some of you to understand because you have been told over and over how much that religious folks hate homosexuals.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    It is still very unclear where any vigilantism or harassment occurred. It actually appears the folks who were fighting for equality were merely ensuring the laws on the books were enforced and then expressed their intent not to patron other for-profit businesses that aided a non-compliant, law-breaking bakery. At what point did the activists violate a law or attack anyone? I ask that honestly, I am not aware of any claimed legal violations on the part of the activists.

    In fact, short of files being charged or evidence being brought forth that these activists did anything illegal, it seems very dangerous for the DesNews to title this an "attack." It's sensationalistic, irresponsible journalism at best, borderline demagoguery at worst.

    The article's title ought to read: "Non-compliant Oregon Bakery Shuts Down Due to Owner's Continued Refusal to Obey the Law."

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    "Asking ethically and not legalistically (the law often baffles me; it is more concerned with precedent than ethics or morality), would such a bakery be required to make an obscene cake? How about a racist cake, or a celebration of terrorism?"

    I think the best way to explain this is, have they ever made an obscese cake for someone else? Or a racist cake? If they have, they need to do it for everyone.

    Had they made a wedding cake for others? Yes. Now they would not do so for a gay couple. That is what makes it discrimination under the law.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Not surprised one bit by this story.

    Apparently some in the gay and lesbian community believe the recent Supreme Court rulings regarding DOMA and Prop 8 now give them license to behave like vigilantes. And, thanks to the help of the media and liberal politicians, its only going to get worse.

    I easily see a day in which Christians will be the ones forced into the closet, whether its the workplace, the school building or college campus or even in regular contacts.

    It will be those who are LDS, Catholic and Baptist who will one day be the biggest target of bullies in public schools. It will be religious buildings and conservative businesses which will be targeted for violence. And freedom of speech will more and more turn into, "You can speak just as long as it is 100% PC."

    And those who are currently the loudest advocates for open-mindedness, tolerance and respect: those who constantly preach against bullying and harassment. where will they be?

    Cricket noises

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Sept. 12, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    The way to have handled this would have been for the owner to agree to do make the wedding cake for the couple but inform them that all profit made from the sale would be donated to a pro traditional marriage organization on their behalf and their name and addresss would be forwarded to the organization so they could send them a thank you card. The couple is still getting the service and they cannot dictate how the owner will use the money received for the services provided.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @New to Utah

    If the gay and lesbian community continues to overplay its hand, people will eventually get tired of their act.

    You want same-sex marriage? Okay. You want anti-discrimination laws? Okay.

    You want to be able to shove your lifestyle down everyone's throat and use mob rule to attack and intimidate anyone who criticizes you even the smallest degree?

    Forget it!

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    No where in the stories about this (and similiar episodes in other states) does it say that there was an absolute refusal to grant all services to LGBT clients. The bakery did not refuse all services to the lesbian couple; there was only a refusal to provide a wedding cake for a same-gender wedding.

    Asking ethically and not legalistically (the law often baffles me; it is more concerned with precedent than ethics or morality), would such a bakery be required to make an obscene cake? How about a racist cake, or a celebration of terrorism?

    I think that a bakery (and a photographer, too, for that matter) should be able to refuse to engage in speech that violates the personal views of the baker (or photographer). I think it is ethically and morally wrong for someone to require a bakery to provide something that violates the personal ethics or morality of the baker. I also think it is wrong for the bakery to refuse to sell its normal products to someone who belongs to a protected status. These are not synonymous actions,and should not be treated as such under the law.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    So here is a question for all of you who are saying service cannot be denied.
    If I have a bakery and someone asks me to bake a cake, do I or do I not have the right to simply say no without giving any reason why I am not going to do it? Or do you believe that I have to agree to an offer of work simply because I opened a business? You must remember that there is a difference between having regular cakes on the shelf for sale and contracting to bake a special cake for someone.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    LGBT activists are intolerant. They demonstated mob rule can force a business to close its doors. It is nothing new in the Portland megaplex. Having lived in Oregon for 10 years, I can assure you that liberal domination of Multanomah county has been a millstone for the nearly 4 million Oregonians who deserve much better. It is sad that other businesses were forced to abide by the dictates of the mob. Portland's former mayor was a gay who was involved in a possible criminal sexual encounter with an underage staffer but eventually was swept under the carpet.

  • @look_to_god in flux, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    Oops. Haha. Correction - 20 years, not ten. In my defense, I had the class about ten years ago...

    Thinking out loud here... (figuratively)... What would happen if someone in the wedding industry (since they seem to be the obvious targets) was approached for providing services for an LGBT ceremony and said to prospective customers, "I'm concerned that my discomfort in being required to attend a function that runs counter to my beliefs and conscience will have a negative impact on how well I am able to focus on the services you wish me to provide." Is this not a legitimate statement and concern? Would they still be sued for how their conscience comes into play?

    This may sound absurd to those who think this ALL absurd, but I think it's legit. If the law required me to give service to members of my abusive family (but of the emotional/psychological sort which is not so documentable), I could well be so distressed that said services would automatically be distracted and therefore below standard. How is the sincere emotional reaction to a forced violation of conscience different?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    @Counter Intelligence

    "actually, simply put; yes they do"

    No, they don't. That's why we don't have a need for civil rights activists to engage in sit-ins at diners that refuse to serve black people.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    @Lane Myer
    "Klan members are not listed on the state law of whom one cannot discriminate against."
    Yes they are, you cannot discriminate agaisnt a religion, and to Klan members, that is a religion.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    So, by one individual's post from Texas, if I had a cake shop that sold cakes that showed what the KKK would like to do to all those who are not of their race, then that would be OK. There are some things called morals that seem to be lacking in today's community.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    To "StraightGrandmother" I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong.

    The first ammendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" That means there will be no state religion like the Church of England, or anything prohibiting you from exercising (practicing) your religion.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    I find it most interesting that the people who demand they have rights are the ones who are least likely to let others have rights. Lest I be misunderstood, I am talking of those on the left, to include the Gay/Lesbian community. We should only let others have rights when it is their way of letting others have rights. Very hipocritical set of people. So glad not to be numbered among them.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    Counterintelligence..seriously? That aside this is ground this country has tred many a time. Every time the definition of human/civil rights is expanded those most exercised about their own freedom go crazy, and generally their objections to someone else's rights is couched in their religious beliefs. Long term the conservatives lose..always. Not that they give up, witness Mr/Ms Counterintelligence, basically denying 100 years of civil rights laws. However if he or she tried to deny service to a Black person because of their race or if they lived in Oregon their sexual orientation, they would lose.

  • @look_to_god in flux, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    Some are sure to pounce on this saying 'it was a religion being attacked, not a business', but I'm surprised no one else has mentioned a case I learned about in my political theory class.

    Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

    I don't recall which poster it was that said there's a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of practice (I can't say I comprehend where/how there is a separation...), but as per the (referenced) quote in wikipedia it said, "it was deemed unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection” "

    So I keep wondering why this has been ignored and forgotten...? This was back in 1993. How did we take a 180 in ten short years?

  • Amalgamate Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    crunchem-youre sadly misinfomred just like other religious sheep. They were not harassed because there is no evidence-any police reports? no-check, any witnesses besides them? no, check, their word is meaningless

  • Amalgamate Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi-youre middle eastern so you dont get it-in this country, we respect ALL people-women too! shocker, huh? It's not about "Gay Right", it's about the right to be gay-your country is about 800 years behind ours-you'll catch up

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    A business that offers services to the public does NOT have the legal right to deny service to "anyone it wants," and that's the way it should be. The Civil Rights acts make it illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion. Otherwise, we'd go back to the days when blacks, gays, Jews, Mexicans, etc., were routinely denied service. I was a customer in a barbershop back in the 1960s when a Latino man came in looking to get a haircut. The barber picked up a bottle, threw it at him, shouted, "Get out of here, Mexican!" That was the pre-Civil Rights world. BTW, I myself never patronized that business again.

  • CottageCheese SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Sounds like acceptance and tolerance to me. "If you don't agree with my morality I will take away your livelihood."

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Sept. 12, 2013 10:14 a.m.


    When a law is developed and passed based on policiacl correctness and immoral principles, it is a bad law...

    When a law takes away the freedoms of an individual or a family wishing to conduct their business based on their religious and moral values it is a bad law...

    When a law is put in place by a city or a state and is in conflict with the laws and provisions of the constitution it is a bad law (meaning illegal) and should be challenged... Then what? Which law do you follow?

    To imply that members of the church who are opposed to this ridiculous and confusing law are in breach of their faith is ridiculous and disingenuous...

    I find it amusing that people who are not of a certain faith or who may not even be religious at all are often the first to head to the pulpit and preach to the masses about the hypocricy of their ways (citing scripture and verse of which they, themselves, have little to no understanding).

    In short, parkcityaggie, I am more than comfortible with how my beliefs on this issue square with my faith.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 9:20 a.m.


    "It's astounding, yes astounding to see the responses here claiming that a business has the right to deny service to anyone it wants. Simply put, no they don't."

    actually, simply put; yes they do

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 9:13 a.m.


    "How come this is the only media outlet I see running this story?"
    Its been widely reported - The DN is actually a late comer

    Stalwart Sentinel
    If a person can hate in the name of God, Motherhood or patriotism - then they can hate in the name of civil rights, women's right or gay right. Your basic assumption that all support for those causes is inherently noble is simply inaccurate.
    As a homosexual, gay bullies do NOT help me any more than Al Sharpton advances racial tolerance.

    btw DN moderators, nice job of ongoing censorship

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    I missed the "attack". All I read was that citizens of Oregon had the audacity to enforce the laws on the books and then proceeded to utilize the free market to boycott or potentially boycott businesses they disagreed with. This isn't an attack, this is standing up to a bully.

    Stop playing the victim. Christians (myself included) have enjoyed the rule of the roost, to the detriment of others, for far too long in the United States. Historically, the perpetrators of human rights violations in the US have a common theme: white, religious conservatives.

    If you want to get a good sense of which side is in the right, look to the activist organizations that correctly fought against civil rights abuses of the past and see who they support. Most organizations that fought for and continue fighting for blacks' rights or women's rights now fight for gay rights. It is disheartening, however, to see my fellow LDS fight against a marginalized group of Americans. If we LDS are going to only fight for individuals that share our personal ideals while fighting against those that don't, I fear we did not learn the appropriate lessons from Missouri/Illinois.

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    This seems to be a coordinated effort by the LBGT community to target small business owners who have a religious objection to gay marriage. Earlier this year the same thing happened to a Colorado bakery. There have also been similar instances with florists and photographers. In one case a photographer arranged for a different photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding for the same price, but the gay couple still file discrimination complaint against the original photographer.

    I have yet to hear about a gay couple trying to do this to a Muslim-owned business, they seem to only target Christians.

    It seems wrong for a judge to religious beliefs have to be set aside when requests are made by clients. Where will this end? Could a web designer be compelled to create a website displaying something contrary to religious beliefs. Could a Jewish or Muslim caterer be compelled to serve ham at an Easter celebration?

  • Tuffy Parker Salem, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    The problem the LGBT activists is that they have no tolerance for difference of opinion. They are right and if you don't agree with them you are wrong. Then they become determined to force you to believe as they do. The concept of "we will force you to accept our belief and accept our actions" is terrifying.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:38 a.m.


    Salt Lake City, UT

    Let's look at it from a different angle.

    If a black photographer is asked to take pictures of a Ku Klux Klan convention and he is held to the same quality and standard of work he would provide anyone else he must provide those services.

    Klan members are not listed on the state law of whom one cannot discriminate against.

    Big difference.

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Marco - Are you reading the same article as the rest of us? What is the story about? A bakery. check. Where is it? Oregon. check. What happened? They were (verbally) attacked and intimidated. check. By whom? Gay rights activists. check.

    Looks like the headline summed it up perfectly. Perhaps your agenda is showing?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    It's astounding, yes astounding to see the responses here claiming that a business has the right to deny service to anyone it wants. Simply put, no they don't. Commerce is regulated pure and simple, and one of those regulations is a restriction on whom you can deny service to. It's federal law and it's state law.

    No state has a law that I'm aware of that says you have to serve everyone who comes through your door, but all states say you can't refuse service to someone based on certain criteria, and now in some states that includes a persons sexual orientation. So, if a gay person comes into your bakery without their shirt on you could ask them to leave based on your standard of no shirt, no service, but you couldn't refuse them service if they requested a cake for their gay wedding.

    I'm also curious which other laws the DN would recommend we refuse to obey.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    When an employee cannot comply with the rules of the employer and is unable to renegotiate the rules the only thing the employee can do is quit.

    The same thing applies to business operations. If a town, city, state or group allows a business operation to provide service or goods to its member citizens, it is in fact in the role of the employer.

    The business operation as the employee must either follow the rules or quit. This is the only freedom that business operations have so far as the permission to operate is concerned. This overall rule for business does not take away any freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    All the bakeries and florists and caterers and photographers that people are wailing and gnashing their teeth about? They aren't in the business of enforcing moral codes or providing spiritual guidance, they exist to MAKE MONEY. And as such they are obligated to comply with civil rights laws, whether those civil rights law protect people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

    Perhaps Christians who believe that existing civil rights laws are too burdensome should file suit to have those laws overturned. Who knows, maybe they’ll be successful! Maybe the Supreme Court will determine that civil rights laws interfere with religious freedom and freedom of association. Then we can go back to the days when landlords could refuse to rent to Muslims, and restaurants could turn away Blacks. Christian business owners would be allowed to ask prospective customers which religion or sexual orientation they are, and then pick and choose which customers to serve, and which to turn away.

    You could even call it "American Exceptionalism!"

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    Mom of 8 - Ironically, since YOUR discrimination was by someone contracted with the STATE to provide a service for you, you SHOULD have squawked long and hard about what they did. That's way out of bounds. As for not baking a cake for someone, that's their PRIVATE business, and no one should tell them how to run it. As it is, I'm glad you found other ways to solve your problem. Talk about double whammy; Mormon AND homeschooled outside of Utah, kudos to you. lol

  • gburns52 Milford, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    From what I've read in this and previous articles, this is not discrimination based on their sexual orientation, as they were regular customers of the bakery. The bakery refused to make a cake that it considered vulgar. Would you consider it discrimination that a delicatessen owned by a Jew did not sell ham? The bigger issue here is that the activists have threatened other businesses, which is extortion. Now, you're talking about cutting off someone's means of surviving and not just a cake for entertainment.

  • Morgan Duel Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    Welcome to the new world. Seems like the Germans faced this thinking in the 1930's and look what happened? But then that really did not happen did it?

  • east of utah Saint Joseph, MO
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    The law is you cannot discriminate because of sexual orientation. Have they ever refused to sell a birthday cake to somebody because they were gay? If two heteorsexual individuals walked in and wanted a wedding cake, would they do it? The issue is not one of sexual orientation but rather same sex marriage.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Sept. 12, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    As a Christian, this is a very tough issue. However, the vindictiveness on the part of the group is overwhelming. Whatever happened to good old fashioned picketing? These types of threats could be construed as extortion. This is on the cusp of what the mafia were once upon a time accused of doing. The question is whether there were physical threats as well.

  • rbgntx Kaufman, TX
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Many of the comments here are supporting the business owner's right to refuse service as they see fit and decrying the pressure brought to bear by the gay community. Many years ago, while a student at Weber State, I witnessed Joy Beach and her inappropriately named "Citizens for True Freedom" protest and demand the closure of an Ogden bakery that sold adult themed cakes. I do not recall a similar outpouring of support for business rights at that time.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    This is not about gay rights anymore. This is now about the Gay Right.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:50 a.m.


    maybe you'd like to talk to the Mormon missionaries that were escorted out of a Christen bookstore in Tulsa, Oklahoma.....For being Mormons, with missionary name tags. The missionaries were told the business refuses the right to serve anyone, and the right to refuse admittance to anyone.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    If hard liners could learn to go with the flow.
    Ok, so you don't approve of something. Learn to live and let live. That's all the bakery had to do. They do not have to embrace gay marriage, or attend the event.
    Wish the couple the best, collect your money, and keep your business thriving. Quite uncomplicated.
    It will be the only way to retain sanity in the days to come.

  • Mimi Venice, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    Now Satan has us fighting over pastries. Stupid.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    Was the bakery vandalized?

    Were the owners assaulted?

    No and no.

    The word "attacked" is used here to imply violence, when in fact the owners of the bakery simply experienced the wholly predictable consequences of their own bigotry.

    Sept. 12, 2013 7:15 a.m.

    -Brother Benjamin Franklin-
    "I think that this business got exactly what it deserved. When you discriminate against someone because you don't agree with them, then you have a serious problem in society."

    Oh, absolutely, so please, the next time you find out a business refused to serve that embezzler, serial killer or pedophile, remember you have a serious problem in society! You can't 'discriminate against someone because you don't agree with them'.

  • The Dixie Kid Saint George, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    If was the bakery I would agree to make the cake, but I would make a horrible looking cake.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Sept. 12, 2013 6:18 a.m.

    I can't believe that I actually agree with Hutterite! (I think for about the 2nd time ever).

    Michael Brown proposed some thought-provoking hypothetical cases in a recent Town Hall column, “Test cases for the freedoms of religion and conscience”: 1) Asking a gay owner of a tshirt shop to make a shirt saying it is not ok to be gay 2) asking a gay photographer to photograph a religious antigay rally 3)asking a gay print shop to print fliers advertising an ex-gay conference? 4) a psychologist asks a gay web designer to make a web ad advertising therapy to turn straight 5) asking an orthodox Jewish videographer to record a Jews for Jesus event 6) hiring an orthodox Jewish caterer to cater for a party in the same kitchen as another caterer preparing pork and shrimp dishes.

    In all these cases I support the business to refuse the customer.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    So many questions and the Church isn't helping.
    For example, the Church openly supports anti-discrimination ordinances regarding renters and employers. How about bakeries, then?
    On the other hand, the Church just launched a religious freedom website.
    A person could easily fit this situation into either arena.
    Then there is the Church support of openly gay but chaste members. Is a woman trapped in a man's body relieved of her priesthood?
    Like I said, so many questions.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Sept. 12, 2013 5:59 a.m.

    If you operate in the public square, you need to follows the laws. If the law says no discrimination on the basis (among others) of sexual orientation - well sorry - its not about religious freedom, its about obeying the law.

  • StraightGrandmother Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 5:39 a.m.

    The fact is the First Amendment protects everyone’s Freedom to Worship, NOT Freedom to practice their religion. Freedom to practice your religion can be regulated by the States. This is why Native Americans are not permitted to use peyote during their worship rites.

    The courts – including the Supreme Court – have specifically ruled as such. For instance,
    Reynolds v. United States (1878) stated:

    “A party’s religious belief cannot be accepted as a justification for his committing an overt act, made criminal by the law of the land.”

    This has yet to be overturned by the Supreme Court and as such still stands.

    The courts have also ruled that anti-discrimination laws are not a violation of either the 1st Amendment or the Constitution.

    The Constitution NEVER granted everyone the right to practice their religion any old way they want to. You have to differentiate Freedom to Worship & Freedom to Practice which are in fact two different things.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 4:38 a.m.

    Mob rule is awesome. Lets have more of it.

    You sell cat food but not dog food? We're gonna shut you down!

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Sept. 12, 2013 4:14 a.m.

    How come this is the only media outlet I see running this story?

    And: "Under Oregon law," the state agency said in a statement, "Oregonians cannot be denied service based on sexual orientation.

    Well: Article of Faith #12 - "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

    Therefor: what's the problem and why is this an issue here in Utah?

  • Eyes_Wide_Open OREM, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 2:07 a.m.

    The arrogance of gay right activists is repulsive. What have we become? Are we expected to be so open minded that our brains fall out? Are individuals and businesses not allowed to have standards? Does this mean the "no shirts, no shoes, no service" signs have got to come down now too, lest someone be offended? This sounds a lot more like slavery than freedom to me.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 12, 2013 1:53 a.m.

    Editors: This is a very poorly reported story starting with an inflammatory and hyperbolic headline including the word "attack".
    If there were threats, then you should rely on the police department confirming as reliable reports of unlawful behavior. Reporting as facts unsubstantiated claims likely motivated by politics is not journalism and is beneath any reputable publication, especially an official house organ.

    This story might be newsworthy, but you certainly haven't reported any news here. Sadly, it reads more like WND propaganda or an Onion parody.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:59 a.m.

    No, Snowman, they don't.

    It's explicitly illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, for instance. This is federal law, as long as the business is even tangentially connected to interstate commerce. Confirmed by a number of Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s.

  • Kelliebelle66 West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:38 a.m.

    i guarantee you if this had been a bakery owned by someone in the LGBT community and someone came in and asked them to make a cake that was denigrating towards their beliefs or if it was a photographer or filmographer who was asked to create an anti-gay photo retrospective or film you could guarantee the courts would stand 100% behind their rights to decline business. Religious rights and beliefs are being trampled on by the very people who call for tolerance for their own views. There are plenty of businesses out there that will take their money so they aren't losing out on anything by just walking their wallets over to another business. My gay brother said he might feel bad to be declined by a business but he wouldn't expect to be forced to compromise his beliefs by being forced to do something he disagreed with. In their push for rights many people have forgotten that other people have rights too and have taken it too far. Perez Hilton has the right to rip on religious people but he forgets that religious people have the right to express their beliefs as well. It goes both ways.

  • Hey Baby Franklin, IN
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:38 a.m.

    Trying to come up with a good ending of the National Anthem, something about "land of the free" isn't fitting so well now!

  • iplaydat South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 12, 2013 12:28 a.m.

    So as a music composer, if someone making an adult film requested my services to score the music for their smut film, I would be obligated to accept, regardless of my religious beliefs? If the film creators were gay or it was a gay adult film, would that make a difference? If I can't deny anyone my services that asks if they are part of this "protected" class, then I would be forced to score the music for the film, right? Just like the bakers that the government wanted to force into serving a customer they didn't want? This can't be right! Come on this isn't some 3rd world dictator country is it?

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:52 p.m.

    A private business can turn down any business they want. Each person can choose whether or not to purchase goods or services from such a business. To specifcally seek out and work to destroy such a business is similar to profiling and stalking. This is not right and the community should rise up against such groups and behaviors.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:39 p.m.

    Thriller- it's very easily explained. It's called "cramming our lifestyle down your throat" or "making an example of anyone who doesn't accept our homosexual lifestyle".

    AS a Mormon, I'd be puzzled and then I'd walk away and take my business elsewhere. But to take it to the court system is way beyond necessary. There had to be a better way than to put this family out of business.

    @ Really- it's a true story. I've read about it from several news sources.

    Sept. 11, 2013 11:36 p.m.

    These bakers shut down their shop because there was at least one lawsuit against them, and they realized that they would lose. There are laws in every state that say that if you have a business that serves the public, you may not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, and in many areas now, sexual preference. It is a state law of Oregon. For you folks in the 19th century state of Utah, you can relax right now because the similar law does not cover sexual preference. So although you cannot turn away Black folks or Mormons from your businesses, you may still tell gay folks that you will not do business with them. Remember when no one liked Mormons because they had too many wives? Some businesses would not serve them back then. Some lessons have yet to be learned.

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:34 p.m.

    Let's look at it from a different angle.

    If a black photographer is asked to take pictures of a Ku Klux Klan convention and he is held to the same quality and standard of work he would provide anyone else he must provide those services. He can't shed his color and he can't refuse on the grounds of personal belief. He can't hide who he is. He can not discriminate. Providing his services in this situation can be very threatening.

    So it is with a devout religious person, he can't shed his faith and he can't refuse on grounds of personal belief. He can't hide who he is by belief. He can't discriminate. Providing his service to people who hate his beliefs can be very threatening.

    But both can insist on reasonable security measures of their own choosing and that feeling of personal safety in a hostile environment can be extremely expensive.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:30 p.m.

    @schwa... You mean like how Romney was relentlessly attacked by Gays and some selected folks in minority groups because he was a Mormon? Or do you mean like how the University of California and Stanford kept and continue to keep BYU out of the PAC12 because they are a Mormon Based University??? That kind of discrimination???

    Because that kind of discrimination is okay, in fact it's vogue in today's liberal world... You can discriminate against a white male under 40 and not let him into high powered universities (i.e. Harvard or Stanford) because he is not in a protected class even though his test scores and gpa are better than protected class competitors... Or you can discriminate in hiring for jobs if the person is white and under 40 despite the fact that they are better qualified...(i.e. How many White Males have been hired as EVPs in Human Resources for fortune 500 companies the past 10 years???)

    In this case, the Bakery supposedly discriminated against a couple of people simply because of a CHOICE that they have made???

    As they say, this world is now officially and totally upside down...

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    PLM has a very good point.
    To hire an artisan/ craftsman whose heart is not "into it" is folly ( or it is an exercise in a hidden agenda)

  • Brother Benjamin Franklin Orem, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    I think that this business got exactly what it deserved. When you discriminate against someone because you don't agree with them, then you have a serious problem in society.

    But the religious people don't want to hear that. They just want to everyone to think like they do, and then manipulate things if they don't get what they want. They use religion as a cover for their dislike of what others believe and feel. To them, LGBT people are not normal, everyday people because they feel and see things differently.

    I am not asking religious people to like or respect that. But I am asking that they stop pretending like they are standing up for something good when they refuse service to people with differing viewpoints, and to just treat them like they themselves want to be treated and be happy for their fellow citizens.

    Accusing LGBT people of activism and being intolerant accomplishes nothing. On the contrary, if it accomplishes anything, it discredits religion and its adherents. And as we all know, saying you believe in one thing and doing something else is hypocritical.

    That is why this business got this result. Plain and simple.

  • Mom of 8 Hyrum, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:04 p.m.


    I was discriminated against because I was a Mormon, when I lived in Virginia. My homeschooled children were supposed to take a state test proctored by another religion's school. When I called to make the arrangements, they asked my religion, and I told them. They promptly hung up and refused to take my follow-up calls. They refused to deal with Mormons, even though it was a state test and they were supposed to administer it.

    What did I do?

    After I got over my shock and dismay, I remembered that they have their points of view, and I have mine.

    I found other arrangements. And I never sought retribution or drew attention to or named the group.

    There are always alternatives.

  • Thriller Saint George, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 10:49 p.m.

    Schwa, as a Mormon, I would not stand outside and protest a business that refused to serve me due to my religion. I would laugh and take my money elsewhere where it is actually wanted. If a company doesn't want to do business with me, it's their loss but it's their right.

    Why would you want someone to make your wedding cake when you know they are completely and morally opposed to your wedding? Why would you feel the need to force them against their will to do what you want or have them shut down? I don't get it.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 10:48 p.m.

    SenoraJefe brings up an interesting point. This is not so much about the fact that the people were lesbians, it was the event they wanted the cake for. A business should be able to discriminate which services they provide.

  • Thriller Saint George, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    They won't tolerate these intolerant actions of intolerant business owners; they simply won't tolerate it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    The business should be able to deny service to anyone. Anyone, then, should be able to take their business elsewhere. Private groups and business and individuals should be able to hold and act on an opinion, within the law, amongst themselves, in context of whatever consequences that opinion may generate. There are people who pull into my driveway on Sunday seeking an antidote to the bad aftertaste of church that I do not wish to provide services to, and like the photographer or baker in the story I reserve the right to to refuse them such service. Of course it's because they can't pay me on sunday and feel less obliged by monday, and that's where I take my stand. Pay me today, or go away. You can lie to god, but not me. It's my privilege, and so it is with this baker.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 10:27 p.m.

    I wonder how commenters would feel about businesses denying service to black people, or Mormons, or women. Discrimination is not allowed for a reason.

  • SenoraJefe orem, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 10:07 p.m.

    I imagine the Christian couple would have been happy to make a birthday cake for one of the lesbian's, or a congratulations cake, or any sort of other cake. It shouldn't be against the law to discriminate against a CEREMONY that goes against a business owner's core beliefs. They weren't discriminating against the lesbians, they were discriminating against the ceremony. Just like the photographer who is going through the same thing for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. I'm sure she would have done some nice head shots or graduation pictures, or other pictures for a gay person, but she shouldn't have to photograph an action or ceremony that goes against her religious beliefs.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:47 p.m.

    I was thinking Freedom of Speech also. As an artist I would turn down a commission that I couldn't create with a clear conscience. No one has the right to force a business to perform a service for them - this story sounds like mob rule and they drove the business out. Remember Karma - what goes around comes around.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    If this is true, it's a very sad story. I have a hard time, however, believing it. Who are the wedding vendors who got the threatening calls? How many calls did they actually get? Right now it sounds like stories without much actual evidence to back up the claims.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    Gay rights activists will not win support by attacking people over their religion.

  • schlumpy Orem, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    No, it is not a public accommodation. It is not a park or government service or public building. It is a private business.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    Businesses have the right to refused service to anyone they want.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:36 p.m.


  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    they should remember that their business is a public accommodation.