The Christian bakers targeted by wedding cake fascists have raised $372,000 from a crowd-funding account. (On top of the money they raised on GoFundMe before GoFundMe caved to the Gaystapo and refused to let them fundraise through that serivce).
There are still tinfoil hatters who think that events like these are a scam; because Christian bakers have to power to force lesbians to sue them, then force Government agencies to enact outrageous fines against them, just so they can then go on crowd-funding sites to cash in.
The left is also spreading a rumor that they were not fined for declining to bake the cake, but for harassing the lesbian couple. This is also false.
I still don’t understand this whole kerfuffle. How is it “sinful” be make someone a Lesbian cake? . . . It’s a cake.
Ted –
You may not agree, but the wedding is a celebration. The cake is a part of that celebration and involves the cake baker’s participation in the celebration of marriage (bakers are usually present at reception to cut the cake).
If homosexuality is a sin and a wedding celebrates this sin, then the christian baker/photographer/florist feel they are implicitly giving approval for sin by participating in the celebration.
Which VtK would likely say is the point of the weddings and lawsuits in the first place – force christians to give approval… even if it is just derived.
Oh… and the part where its wrong… 1 Cor 13: Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing.
I have never attended a wedding reception where the cake’s baker was present, nor name even mentioned. It’s a cake, …and there’s punch.
Ted,
I agree that generally bakers do not attend the wedding just to cut the cake, and I haven’t read in any story that these bakers were being invited to attend or otherwise expected to attend.
However, that’s not really the issue – the issue is that, unlike purchasing a cake off the shelf, a wedding cake is made-to-order, and represents an expression of the artistic and creative skills of the baker. For the state to compel artistic expression by a baker – or any other artist – to anyone who asks is a serious violation of their freedom of expression, not to mention in this case that the baker believes also that making a cake celebrating a gay wedding would represent a grave sin on her part – and that to coerce her under penalty of law would violate her right of religious expression.
To you a wedding cake might be a small matter, but you aren’t in that baker’s shoes.
I am still of the opinion that there is a difference between a secular baker that has religious convictions and a religious bakery.
If a bakery is tied to a religious organization and advertises as such and does not make cakes for anyone that falls outside that religious organization, I am fine if they don’t make cakes for everyone who stops by.
In my mind it is similar to getting married in a Catholic church – i.e. you have to be a Catholic in good standing, any previous marriage annulled (scam), and jump through hoops. For a bakery that is “religious” then no way they shsould be forced to make a cake for anyone that falls outside that be they pagan, atheist, divorced, etc.
A secular bakery who makes cakes without stipulation for divorced and etc should make the same sex cake too. You should not be picky about which sin you are going to let slide.
However, I am not in agreement with gays targeting places to get them closed down and harassing people. Actually looking for White Christians to force them to make cakes but ignoring Muslims and other ethnic groups. This whole payday for harassment by gays is just wrong.
All this vindictiveness and hate by gays against Christians (supposed payback) is against what the gays originally said — i.e. allowing gays to marry is not going to impact anyone else.
I think the more salient question is why was it so damn important to the lesbians that this particular bakery make their wedding cake.
There should be a high threshold before the State is allowed to take away someone’s freedom; like actual physical or demonstrable economic harm. Hurt feelings or the slight inconvenience of going to another bakery does not rise to that level. If you set the bar for the Government taking away someone’s freedom at “hurt feelings,” you’re begging for tyranny.
As others have said, the baker normally is an active participant in the ceremony. To use force of government to comply the labor od others used to have a name. Trying to remember what it was…
And don’t forget, they didn’t refuse to serve the couple. One of them was a regular customer. They refused a specific contract.
If the bakery had “Kosher” or “halal” on its window, would you be OK with accepting their terms?
If the bakery had “Christian” on their window, would you boycott their chocolate chip cookies?
Its a cake…… Sarah Lee makes cakes. Food Lion makes cakes. Craig’s list will find you a cake. How hard is it to get a cake? … Its a cake.
Cryer wanted a grand wedding. Her mother came to town, and they visited a local bridal show where they noticed the Sweet Cakes by Melissa booth. They’d ordered from Melissa’s Sweet Cakes once before — for Cryer’s mother’s wedding — and they enjoyed it. So, they scheduled a Sweet Cake tasting for the following day.
When Cryer and her mother arrived at Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron Klein ushered them to his office, where he then asked for the names of the bride and groom. Told there would be two brides, he refused service right then and there. “I believe I have wasted your time,” he claims to have said. “We do not do cakes for same-sex weddings.”
Crying and apologizing to her mother, who Cryer felt she’d deeply embarrassed, she headed to the car. A few moments later, her mother returned to the bakery to defend her daughter. She reasoned with Aaron Klein, saying that she’d once felt as he did, but after having two gay children, her “truth had changed.”
In response, Aaron Klein referenced a Bible verse from Leviticus — which in context, he’d cited perniciously — to call the Bowman-Cryer family “abominations,” which he denies.
Rachel Bowman-Cryer brought her mother, Cheryl McPherson, to the Jan. 17, 2013 cake tasting.
Klein brought out a 10-inch, black dinner plate, the same plate he uses for all tastings. He brought options.
“Melissa has always been on my case to have nine different flavors,” Klein testified.
Klein said he sat down, holding his clipboard with the company’s standard cake contract. He asked the customers for the name of the bride and groom, as well as their wedding date.
Rachel Bowman-Cryer “didn’t even give me the wedding date, just the fact that there were two brides,” Klein testified. “She giggled a little bit.”
Klein testified that he didn’t want to have to say no. He said he spoke in the tone he always uses when he’s shy about making a point. He spoke in “a deep, monotone voice” as he broke the news.
“I didn’t want to make anybody upset,” Klein said Tuesday. “I said, ‘I’m very sorry, I believe I have wasted your time. We do not do cakes for same sex weddings.'”
Klein testified that Rachel Bowman-Cryer looked at her mother. They stood up and left.
“I don’t remember hearing any words,” Klein said. “I don’t remember anybody crying, just upset I could tell.”
Later that day, Klein said, McPherson returned to the shop alone.
“She stated that you have your opinion and you have a right to it, but I’d like to say my piece,” Klein testified. “She told me God had made her children gay and that her truth had changed and that she accepted them.”
Klein said he did not mean to belittle anyone when he spoke next.
“Why would the Bible say, and I quoted Leviticus,” Klein testified.
In affidavits, Klein said he quoted Leviticus 18:22, saying, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Klein testified that McPherson said, “You’re wrong,” and walked out.
So, Cut-and-Paste proves my point, the gay people didn’t suffer any actual harm, they were just overly emotional special snowflakes whose precious little feelings were hurt when someone said “No” to them.
I thought the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. Isn’t that what forcing somebody to do a service is? A form of involuntary servitude?
Juan –
But but but business license! And taxes!
All those should mean is I’m paying off the state to let me do business my way. Can’t figure out how jumping through hoops and giving up profits somehow translates to the public (i.e. gov’t) doing ME a favor.
If you feel you have been emotionally raped because someone wouldn’t bake you a cake, you need a good psychologist, not a lawyer.
Does rusty, or should i say Cut-n-Paste think what he posted is making his case? Because it doesnt, it just proves what a bunch of nutcases those two lesbians are.
Rusty, I would suggest that if a Christian tells you “homosexuality is a sin and abomination,” but you disagree, there are basically two logical responses:
(A) If you’re NOT a Christian, then you say, “Who cares what you think? Jesus is just for pretends, and you don’t have any magical voodoo powers!”
(B) If you ARE a Christian, but you happen to believe that homosexuality is not intrinsically sinful, then you say, “Oh my goodness, sir, your interpretation of Leviticus 20:13 is grotesquely distorted, and I’d rather not listen to the opinions of Heretics, thank you very much — but I’ll pray for the conversion of your soul!”
But under no circumstances should you squeal like a stuck pig (or, as the mother of one of the plaintiffs put it, like a “beaten dog”) and ask the gubmint to take your side in what is essentially a theological quarrel, where the State ought to have no business at all.
Throwers
Rachel Bowman-Cryer had purchased a cake at Sweet Cakes for her mother.
When her mother came to town to plan the wedding Bown-Cryer and her mother discovered Sweet Cakes at a bridal event and set up an appointment for a tasting. Bowman-cryer and her mother met with Aaron Klein at Sweet Cakes and during the tasting it was discovered that it was to be a same sex wedding. Aaron Klein told the two that Sweet Cakes does not do cakes for Same sex weddings. Rachel and her mother left upset. When the mother returned to ask Aaron Klein to reconsider Aaron Klein popped off with his Levitcus quote.
The issue is that in Oregon business cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.
If a Bakery is advertising its services at a public event like a bridal event, they cannot be selective in who they will or won’t serve.
Sorry. thrower is supposed to be Throbert
Rusty, You are correct that the Baker clearly discriminated against the couple. By refusing to bake the cake the Baker now faces $135,000 fine and had a gag order placed on them. It is no longer about simple discrimination where two women were “Emotionally Raped” over a wedding cake. It is now about a totalitarian government that is only to happy to financially crush you if dare operate by your own conscience.
From BOLI
This isn’t about cake. It is about a business’ refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.
Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.
Rusty, I don’t like discrimination. But I believe that if a black woman wants to risk her own money and open a Black Beauty salon, she shouldn’t be forced to hire Becky from the Valley or carry a whole line of products she will never use. If a gay man wants to risk his money and open up a gay leather bar for gay leather men he shouldn’t be forced to serve drag queens. And if a christian baker just isn’t into the whole gay wedding scene, go find another baker.
It’s already a tough world out there for small business owners, made even tougher by thin skinned, emotional blood suckers that can’t handle the word NO.
D. Rader @23:”
That will go completely over simpleton rusty’s pointy little head.
In response, Aaron Klein referenced a Bible verse from Leviticus — which in context, he’d cited perniciously — to call the Bowman-Cryer family “abominations,” which he denies.
In affidavits, Klein said he quoted Leviticus 18:22, saying, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Notice the internalization happening here? Klein didn’t call them ‘abominations,’ he quoted the Lord’s Word, which calls the behavior an abomination. Yet these snowflakes are incapable of comprehending the difference.
Leaving God out of this for a moment, I’m reasonably certain that wrapping your entire identity up in your sex life isn’t mentally healthy. Just saying.
Also, cut-and-paste’s formulation is bullcrap anyway. WalMart refuses to bake Confederate Flag cakes, no one sues. Muslims refuse to bake cakes for gays, no one sues. Gays refuse to bake cakes for Christians, no one sues. It is Christians and only Christians that are being forced to bow to the state.
Implicit constitutional protection via 13th Ammendment trumps explicit constitutional protection via 1st Ammendment
The Jews were forced to give up their homes and moved to the Ghetto. Then they were herded unto trains. Then into the ovens……
Ah but it was because……… you fill in the blank.