Oregon will oversee settlement process between Christian bakers, lesbian couple

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bob K portland, OR
    Feb. 3, 2014 2:08 a.m.

    First -- as I understand it, they had shopped there before, just as the men in WA had bought flowers for 9 years from the woman who turned them down. The brides were acting perfectly reasonably, in a suburb of Portland (a very lesbian town).
    How better to feel humiliated than to be turned down at one of your favorite shops?

    Second -- the right has used this case to rant about "forcing people to bake a cake". Actually, that would be involuntary servitude. Since the discrimination was illegal in OR, kindly stop saying the baker had a right to say no.

    Third -- from my observation of the baker in TV interviews, I wonder how he spoke to them. Perhaps if he had asked very nicely whether they would mind too much if he didn't want to do it, they would have just gone elsewhere. Telling people they are not the right kind of Christian (as has happened to me) is rude, at best.

    Fourth -- I think some accomModation should be made for the religious, but it will be very complicated to work it out fairly.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Feb. 2, 2014 4:36 a.m.

    To attend or work a same sex wedding is to condone and support a same sex union. And to profit from it. The bakers would have no trouble selling them any baked good for any other reason or occassion in their lives. It has nothing to do with not wanting to serve someone considered in a state of sin or not. It is just about being asked to support and participate in a wedding their religious beliefs do not allow them to participate. This was a bad decision by the courts. If they refuse to sell them a donut on Sunday or batch of cupcakes for a birthday I would agree with the courts. What is next, a judgement for a couple from a church that refuses to wed the pair?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    Utah is headed this same direction via the proposed non-discrimination law that is currently being looked at. There are ample laws that protect against discrimination in housing, employment, and nearly everything else at the federal level. There is no need for such a law at the state level. Pass it and we will live to regret it. Guaranteed.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2014 1:18 a.m.

    @ J.Chang

    Ironically, what you just said is why SSM is going to be legalized. Your religion begins and ends with you....

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    Cowboy Dude


    And yet Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Oregon. The law makes no sense.


    It isn't illegal. It just is not recognized by the state. Big Difference!

  • J.Chang duval, FL
    Jan. 31, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    The Family
    A Proclamation to the World

    ...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

    All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

    The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 31, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    Ahhh, the dilemma for the faithful.

    "The Church’s affirmation of marriage as being between a man and a woman “neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.” On the contrary, many Church leaders have spoken clearly about the love and respect with which all people are to be treated.

    The gospel of Jesus Christ is based on love, respect and agency. Mormons believe that all humans have inherited strengths, weaknesses, challenges and blessings and are invited to live, through the help and grace of God, the principles revealed by Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains that “God’s universal fatherhood and love charges each of us with an innate and reverent acknowledgment of our shared human dignity. We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another.”
    (LDS org "Same Sex Attraction)

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:06 p.m.

    And yet Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Oregon. The law makes no sense.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    The articles states:

    " Since refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, protests by gay activists outside their Gresham, Ore., bakery forced Aaron and Melissa Klein to move the business into their home while the Christian couple awaited a ruling by state labor investigators"

    Deseret News, who are the Christian Couple? The bakers or the customers? Is it possible that the four of them were Christians?

    A long time ago, I read a book called "The Human Animal" it was a psychology book. The book clearly expressed what we are seeing here. The dehumanization of those whom we want to attack. "The Lesbian couple" on one side and Aaron and Melissa Klein on the other side, but, they are humans they have names, also are like most of the good people of Utah, they are Christians.

    Many LGBT are Christians, many straight supporters of SSM are Christians, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Judge in the case is also Christian.

    Bigotry is Un-Christian. May be the Kleins are just misguided, therefore, as a good Christian I would forgive tell them, "go an sin no more".

  • Danny Chipman Lehi, UT
    Jan. 30, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    "Sometimes a cake is just a cake." --Counselor Deanna Troi (paraphrasing Freud) to Lt. Cmdr. Data, Star Trek: TNG

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:01 p.m.

    Reading the commentary brought to mind the book, “All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.” And it occurred to me that public accommodation laws are really just a more sophisticated version of what most, if not all, of us were taught in our first years of schooling. “If you want to bring a treat to class, make sure you bring enough for everyone.” Because it isn’t nice to leave some people out, to unnecessarily hurt someone’s feelings or humiliate them, no matter how much we dislike them. If we want to treat only those we like, we can invite them to a private party at our house. But in the classroom, the nice thing to do is to provide a treat for everyone.

    I think the cries of “religious conscience” are really just demands to be exempt from the rules of the classroom. It’s saying, “I shouldn’t have to be nice to everyone because my religion tells me so.”

    Not a very nice religion.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    So let me understand:

    The gays believe the constitution gives them the power to force or compel another's personal service or labor.

    Isn't that servitude? or slavery? even fascism?

    Where will it end?

    I would rather we allow freedom, even if its disagreeable, than allow the power to dictate to others.

    It's worse than discrimination to force another to not bake a cake. Because you are compelling personal labor and service, They not being denied a general service.

    The only "compromise", and only thing the baker need do to conform to any equality law, is let the gay couple come in and buy any already made cake in the store.

    Forcing the baker the make a special cake is slavery or servitude, and that is unconstitutional.

  • RDJntx Austin, TX
    Jan. 29, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    Ranch Said"All of you claiming that the 1st Amendment rights of the bakery owners is being violated are ignoring the elephant in the room: The 1st Amendment rights of LGBT supporters to practice their religious beliefs and allow same-sex couples is being violated - BY YOU."

    I would disagree. The LGBT couple has every right to go someplace else. the words of those who side with the baker in no way impinge upon the "rights" of the gay couple or any other LGBT couple. I am, in general, a supporter of LGBT rights, but I find this couples desire to force the owners to sell them a cake more offensive than the store owners position. Why would the couple even want a cake from a business that doesn't want their money? They are using thier marriage to make a political statement and I see their putting that political statement first and foremost, incongrous with their desisre to have their relationship accepted by society as a whole. The brouhaha they have fostered does the LGBT cause more harm than good because it turns people who would othersie be on the fence against them.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    Brama (Bull)
    Seems like you just can't square with the concept that we live in America, where people are free to make their own decisions and choices. It doesn't matter what logic the baker in Oregon is using, he has Freedom to do what he feels. The gay couple can go elsewhere for their cake, have a gay friend bake it or a willing participant. The stores also have Betty Crocker pre mixed cakes for sale.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 4:14 p.m.


    "For those of you who side with the bakery, would it also be okay for them to ask couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex, and then refuse to serve them if they had?"

    The cake was a symbol of a celebration of an event - a gay wedding. Had the couple asked for a cake with obvious descriptions of pre-marital sex on the cake then it would be OK to refuse them. Asking them whether they had actually engaged in such an act is irrelevant - it is what the cake stands for.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    "Most disagree with the fact that the lady refused the couple service. But I struggle with the logic that she should be compelled to."

    Keep in mind that one does not have the right to run a business -- they have the privilege. To earn the privilege to run a business you are compelled to follow the rules which includes "serving everyone".

    It is just like driving. For the privilege to drive a car, one is compelled to follow traffic law. You don't like the traffic laws? Don't drive. You don't like selling wedding cakes to gay couples? Get out of the cake business.

  • pleblian salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    These rulings are disturbing. I don't agree with those who would refuse to serve anyone LGBT. Nonetheless, the court is, in a very real sense, compelling private businesses to perform a service against their will.

    Similar rulings were made against businesses who refused to serve non-whites in the 1960s. So the courts began recognizes "protected classes" of persons who were discriminated upon because of their "status" ie: gender, race, nationality.

    These cases seek to expand "status" to categories which are defined by behaviors, not status.

    Protection of behaviors is covered by the 1st Amendment...you know the one protecting free exercise of religion. Status is covered by the Fourteenth.

    Can I refuse service to a known Mormon because I disagree with their way of life and think they are of the devil? Juggalos? Flipside, can a Mormon refuse service to a LBGT because the Mormon disagrees with the way of life of a LBGT and think they are of the devil? What about an anti-Mormon?

    Most disagree with the fact that the lady refused the couple service. But I struggle with the logic that she should be compelled to.

  • sg newhall, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    I am offended by the same sex couple who sued the bakery. Whatever happened to religious freedom? I would not have been surprised had the bakery been owned and operated by a muslim couple and it refused service that nothing would have come of it. This is a blatant attack on Christians and their values and beliefs. Perhaps it is time for all Christians to boycott every single business operated and owned by gays?

  • trueblue87 Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    @ NewAgeMormon

    They didn't ask the couple. It was right there in front of them that the cake was for a gay couple.

    There was no screening process other than the couple themselves.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Jan. 29, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    This is an ugly case where the religious beliefs of the owners have seeped into their business. They should remain separate. If I own a grocery store, and I am Mormon, is it against my religion to sell alcohol in my store? My religious beliefs are that I shouldn't drink alcohol, but my business is selling product. That in no way makes the statement that I support drinking alcohol, it supports that people can choose to or to not drink.

    You can't sell alcohol, and then if somebody that is Mormon comes in to buy the alcohol (yes, it does happen) deny them service because you don't want to contribute to their sinning. That is ludicrous. You can't likewise operate a bacon stand, and refuse to sell bacon to a jew or Muslim. You also can't make cakes, and refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple because you think they shouldn't be getting married. It doesn't mean to support or even agree with what they are doing. Your beliefs should not be moving in to your business as far as refusing service because you feel like something is a sin.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    I feel we should be careful in these laws that involve "dictates of conscience." Where as I can see many businesses in Utah not serving a LGBT customer, imagine the unintended consequences of such a law. What if a business owner's conscience prevents him from doing business with lifestyles he/she doesn't agree with, such as missionaries?

    "You want a cake for your son's farewell/homecoming? I'm sorry, I don't agree with that lifestyle."

    I also don't believe that a lawsuit will settle anything in this matter. People will refuse to do business with a certain portion of the population. People will go to other businesses. Each side will feel discriminated against and bullied.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    If you open a business to the public it should serve the public. How does your selling a cake for a gay wedding, which will happen whether you provide the product or not, encourage behavior you consider immoral? Would you also refuse to sell a birthday cake to someone who you suspect is gay? Does it make you an accomplice? Is it immoral for a Mormon youth to work in a coffee shop? I drove cab to support myself in college. I knew that at times I was transporting drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps and johns. Did I feel like I was enabling those activities. No! It was not my business to try and curtail immoral activities, but provide a service. It was not my job to make moral choices for them. My refusing to give those people a ride would have had no effect whatsoever as they would get transportation from someone else.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert of Michigan says:

    "The test of religious freedom is allowing people to do things mandated by their religion that you personally disagree with."

    Like marrying the person of their choice for instance? You oppose that, sir, which makes you a hypocrite.

    YGradFan says:

    "Most LDS people, along with most people from other religions, would "turn the other cheek" and take their business elsewhere."

    I doubt that. I sincerely doubt that.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    Atl 134
    If a cake is made for a gay couple, or decorated indicating such, then that would make it a gay cake, simple. Leave the baker alone, he has his freedom to like or dislike as he chooses. This is America, at least it was before it started to morally sink.

    Jan. 29, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @dmcvey, "Imagine the comments on this if the baker had refused to serve Mormons."

    Most LDS people, along with most people from other religions, would "turn the other cheek" and take their business elsewhere. It seems to only be the LGBT community that resorts to lawsuits if they don't get their way or if they get their feelings hurt.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    All of you claiming that the 1st Amendment rights of the bakery owners is being violated are ignoring the elephant in the room: The 1st Amendment rights of LGBT supporters to practice their religious beliefs and allow same-sex couples is being violated - BY YOU.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    Luckily we do not have to be able to cite scripture to have a religious right that is protected by the constitution. Ranch Hands attempts to argue that these people are religiously wrong misses the heart of religious freedom. The test of religious freedom is allowing people to do things mandated by their religion that you personally disagree with.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    This is another egregious violation of individual freedom. People should have an unrestricted right to operate their business in line with their religious belief.

    It is doubly egregious since it is unclear why Oregon can treat differently marriages from other relationships, but cake makers can. If the state does not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, why can it compel individuals to do so?

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    Unless they are secretly going to marry me to someone at the ceremony when I drop off the cake I think I will bake them a nice cake.

  • pbunny Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    Dear Christopher B,

    The only thing that Jesus was recoded as saying about marriage was that people who divorced for reasons other than infidelity and later remarried were adulterous in remarriage. The Christian bakers should be most concerned about making cakes for these adulterers condemned by the Lord. Would you support the Christian baker’s refusal to provide services to people remarrying?
    I look forward to your thoughtful reply,

  • Atalya Stansbury Park, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    I remember signs stating "No shoes, no shirt, no service" and older signs aimed at ethnic/religious groups with "No Japs" posted in business windows. The no shirt signs were against the "hippies" as a "health issue" and the others were plain ugly bigotry. Recently, a person with a service dog was taken off a plane although service animals are supposed to be allowed. Supposedly, the issue was that the large dog (obviously well trained) could not fit in the tiny area beneath the seat--which is ridiculous. Did the community of people that use service animals, including seeing-eye dogs, sue the airline and vociferously call for boycotting any suppliers to the airline? No. The incident was filmed and posted on youtube and public censure flooded the airline.
    I don't think we have the full story on this. Maybe the cake would have been offensive if done as ordered. Maybe the bakery owners couldn't think in the thick of the moment to say "We cannot be an accessory to you breaking the law--I'm sorry." The offer of a plainer cake was refused, and ugliness commenced. Was that the whole intent--making trouble? I think so.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    Flat out, I think all that needs to happen is a couple of people be denied service and told it's specifically because they're straight, or religious. Things will change.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    This is out of common sense.
    You just might as well hang up a sign "Here is a Jew, don't buy anything" of " Here is a Christian, don't buy anything".(As well as here is an anti-gay bussiness)

    That actually happened in old Nazy Germany, and they got grilled later on, as you all know.

  • annarbormom1 ann arbor, MI
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Religion is not a defense for discrimination. Thank God!

  • Qwest Perfected Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    Often times in modern American history law suits on issues that some thought morally unacceptable by religious standards, educated the public and took the lead on generating acceptance far beyond any of the major churches did.

    For example Brown vs Board of Education or the Supreme Courts decision that allowed interracial marriages.

    The idea that people should just lay down and accept discrimination by a business or otherwise is unconscionable. I'm glad these people took a stand and made people take notice that bigotry and discrimination is a real issue and is being done every day in this country under the guise of morality or religious freedom. A little more than ironic that it is the opposite of the meaning of being Christian.

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    Next Churches will be forced to marry gay couples. This is a slippery slope. So much for freedom.

  • mecr Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    The time will come where the churches, and the Mormon in top of the list, will be forced to marry a gay couple.

    The only solution that I can see to this problem is that the business becomes a club where the owner chooses the right to select the members, like any other club. Then the business will provide the service to whoever he/she wants to serve.

    Sounds crazy but if gays complain people push an agenda against them nevertheless they are the real pushers of their own political agenda.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    AGAIN... it all comes down to gays trying to force their morality on the rest of society. The article plainly states that the gay couple were customers at the bakery for years, and were not denied service as gay people. It was only when they wanted to force the business to become part of their gay wedding, that a line was drawn. In other words, most gays are in favor of denying citizens their religious freedoms, and forcing them to participate in something against their religion!

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    All animals are equal, but gay animals are more equal than you

    --slight misquoting of Orwell.

    See, the LGBT lobby is insisting they have more rights. What happens when, as is inevitable, Oregon bankrupts this couple and takes their house. The next gay person out to make a statement will walk into some Christian business and demand that they be served, no matter what, in any way. And for a nominal price. If you refuse, you are discriminating. After all, Obama has shown that you cannot have a valid reason to object to his policies--it's all racist. And if you refuse anything to a gay, it's "religious bias!" Even if the reality is that they want a million dollar service for 5 bucks, that's not how it will be portrayed. And you'll spend ten million fighting the state run discrimination board that is the gay lobby enforcement arm.

  • Makethemhonest Orem, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Would a gay baker be required to make a cake for a Nazi who favors concentration camps for gays?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    lindaj72: Again, the bakers of your "lady" cake did not have to make that cake. It was a decision on their part to do so.

    BUT, having made that cake for some customers, they could not refuse to make that same cake for another customer.

    The bakery in Oregon was making wedding cakes for some of their customers but would not do so for these customers.

    It is a subtile difference, but I think most people can understand the difference.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    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

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    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).

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    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?

  • That's A Good One Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:54 a.m.

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

  • johnnylingo62 Gray, TN
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • lindaj72 salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    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?

  • Southernmiss kaysville, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    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.

  • TheBleak West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    I would not eat a cake baked by my enemy.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:28 a.m.

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

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    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.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Jan. 29, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    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.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    @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.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    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".

  • AttilaTheHun Nephi, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    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

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Jan. 29, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    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".

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 29, 2014 5:38 a.m.

    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.

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:34 a.m.

    "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.

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:11 a.m.

    "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.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 1:06 a.m.

    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!

  • Old Enuf Salt lake, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:58 a.m.


    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.

  • Monsieur le prof Sandy, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:06 a.m.

    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).

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 12:03 a.m.

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

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:15 p.m.

    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?

  • Laura M ,
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:02 p.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.

  • trueconservative Northern Utah, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:42 p.m.

    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.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:40 p.m.

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

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:39 p.m.


    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?

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    It sounds like the Kleins are being discriminated against.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:31 p.m.

    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?

  • Mrs T Coalville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    "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.

  • Old Enuf Salt lake, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:21 p.m.

    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.


  • gittalopctbi Glendale, AZ
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    ...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.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:18 p.m.

    "What makes you think they [Mormons] could be forced to marry a gay couple?"

    -RanchHand, Oct 2013

    Call me crazy, but forcing others to do everything else for you doesn't help your case.

  • Ed Grady Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    Just bake the cake and take their money.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    "The New Civil Rights Movement website reported that Sweet Cakes wasn't the only business to feel the reverberations of the discrimination complaint. The LGBT community threatened to boycott any company that did business with Sweet Melissa."

    Now that's just mean spirited and vicious. Agree to disagree, but don't try to destroy the livelihood of the bakers or of the suppliers that had no involvement with the disputed transaction.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    New Age Mormon,

    "For those of you who side with the bakery, would it also be okay for them to ask couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex, and then refuse to serve them if they had?"

    That would make sense if the couple was coming in for a cake to celebrate their pre-marital sex, but most likely couples are coming in for a wedding cake. Even if a couple did have pre-marital sex, the wedding cake is to celebrate the wedding, which between a man and a woman, is not a sin.

    Good try.

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:58 p.m.

    " Now the two parties must undergo a state-ordered "conciliation" process to reach a settlement?"

    This is an easy fix, "I'll agree to bake you a cake and you agree not to get married,"

    Like I said, easy, peezy.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:45 p.m.


    "For those of you who side with the bakery, would it also be okay for them to ask couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex, and then refuse to serve them if they had?"

    The bakery is baking wedding cakes. If a couple has come, regardless of whether they have had pre-marital sex or not, if they are requesting a wedding cake, then the bakery is helping them celebrate their wedding. Their wedding is not a sin, even if they've had premarital sex. The bakery would not be baking a "premarital sex celebration cake". Its a wedding cake.

    Sorry, I know you wanted so hard to make a good point there, but it doesn't hold up. The wedding cake is to celebrate the wedding.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:29 p.m.

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

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:29 p.m.

    Our constitution has a bill of rights. We honor the constitution which gives religious liberty.
    Let us honor our military dead heroes who gave their life so that we can have our civilian lives and pursuing our lives, liberties and happiness's with our conscience.
    Our constitution was created for a religious people. Any other people will not honor this constitution which is based on our Judeao Christian founding fathers desire for religion to control the masses NOT government. The US is for self reliant citizens and God fearing people. Socialists and government dependency is not what the founding fathers had in mind when the constitution was written. JFK said it the people should be giving back to their country not asking their country for a handout.

  • NewAgeMormon Draper, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:09 p.m.

    For those of you who side with the bakery, would it also be okay for them to ask couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex, and then refuse to serve them if they had?

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:51 p.m.


    I love that idea! I think I'd more likely go shop somewhere if I knew a portion of the proceeds were going to be donated to such a worthy cause, such as protecting families!

  • Mark from Montana Davis County, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    @ Ranch Hand

    It isn't, in my mind, about liking them or not. It also isn't about if it is the best way to handle it. To me, those saying they will not provide the service is about them not wanting to suggest in any way that they agree with or support the actions. That is 100% about religious freedom.

    If it were me, I am not sure what I would do, but I completely respect business owner's rights to not provide service. I would move from any state that forced me to violate my beliefs.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    @ Avenue

    Do they have the right to say who can and can't sit at their lunch counters?

  • NewAgeMormon Draper, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    I wonder if these "Christian" business owners also ask straight couples if they have had pre-marital sex before baking them a cake. Being as religious as they are, I'm sure that's a lifestyle they wouldn't agree with. They should also ask about lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Heck, they might as well just post a 10 Commandments checklist to screen potential customers.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    @Mr Normal
    "I'd rather not have a gay cake."

    I didn't know cakes had sexual orientations...

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:41 p.m.

    @The Rock;

    "Denying service is probably not the right solution. I would inform the customer that I would provide them with a wedding cake, but the profits would be donated to groups fighting same sex marriage."

    I doubt they'd go elsewhere, but you'd be out the cost of the service/product provided. Not particularly good business sense. You should get to know some gay couples, you would probably like them.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:41 p.m.

    If the business owners feel the law violates the State Constitution, they need to sue the state - not refuse to follow the law.

  • Mr_Normal utah, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:39 p.m.

    No thanks Ranch,
    I'd rather not have a gay cake.

    Oregon and other states have their laws and, unfortunately, these new "Gay Rights" seem to make liberal judges think it's okay for them to ignore the older laws, even their old constitutions, in favor of what's popular at the moment.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    @ RanchHand

    All businesses in the country have the right to refuse service to anyone, especially if it would violate personal religious views to do so. If the government were to force someone to do this, it would violate the rights listed in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:35 p.m.


    It should not be news that many Christians consider any sexual expression outside of a traditional marriage to be sin. Many Christians also consider same sex marriage in the same category.

    If I were a land lord I would not want to rent housing to a couple living in sin. I would feel like I was helping them sin.

    Denying service is probably not the right solution. I would inform the customer that I would provide them with a wedding cake, but the profits would be donated to groups fighting same sex marriage.

    1. The so called law would not be broken.
    2. The customer would take their business elsewhere.
    3. There would be no law suit.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    There is not a single scripture anywhere that says: "Thou shalt not provide products or services to sinners". Jesus DID say: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He also said: "Judge not lest ye be judged by the same measure".

    Any claim of "religious conscience" in serving "sinners" (i.e. LGBT couples), therefore, is nothing but bigotry.