Court upholds $135K fine against Sweet Cakes owners

[DonViejo]

Source: KOIN-TV




The cake shop refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding

KOIN 6 News Staff
Published: December 28, 2017, 9:59 am Updated: December 28, 2017, 10:21 am

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The Oregon Court of Appeals decided Thursday to uphold the $135,000 fine issued to the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding in 2013.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, who closed the cake shop in October 2016, appealed the fine to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries in March. They argued the fine violated their rights as artists to free speech, their rights as Oregonians to religious freedom and their rights as defendants to a due process.

The couple already paid the fine in December 2015, however, the Bureau of Labor and Industries was holding onto the money until all the appeals were settled. The bakery owners made national headlines after they refused to bake a cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer in February 2013. They said their refusal was prompted by religious beliefs.

Due to the backlash, the couple closed their Gresham store in 2013 and ran the business out of their home until 2016.

###



Read more: http://koin.com/2017/12/28/court-upholds-135k-fine-against-sweet-cakes-owners/

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Yes!!!!!!

[john657]

2. Good.

Prejudice of any kind should not be tolerated in this country.

Free market solution at it's best.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. A business should sell to anyone, that's why they're in business

just avoid the difficult people if you can.

And I never did understand the idea that my religious beliefs were baked into the cake. By that logic any product I work on, even these words I type, could hold religious beliefs. Cars, parts, furniture, houses, tires ... you get the idea.

Let's leave religiously blessed objects to the clergy, rabbis, priests. Kosher and Holy water are the only two such that i know of.

[mr_lebowski]

5. So, I do wonder ... how do restaurants get away with posting 'We reserve the right ...

... to refuse service to anyone'?

Or have those all gone away and I've just not noticed?

Presumably they could get in some kind legal trouble if they demonstrably refused service simply on the basis of the customer being part of a 'protected class' or whatever you call it ... i.e. they can't not serve you cause you're black, or irish, or female, or jewish ... but afaik 'sexual orientation' is (sadly) not one of those (yet).

IOW, if they CAN actually do that, legally, then why couldn't a bakery owner ... do the same? Is it maybe just a State-Level thing?

[Deuce]

6. I found the link below helpful...i was also curious.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

[bucolic_frolic]

8. Yes that is helpful

Public accommodation and safety issues, discrimination issues, I would think also state licensing issues. A business almost always needs a license, or be registered with the state or local government, or is an implied public business because they must pay taxes on their profits. Laws exert a lot of control on everything.

[IMnotU]

14. 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'

Means if you have a child who acts up, are drunk, or do not meet their dress code. My sister owned a restaurant and she would refuse service for any of those reasons without worrying about breaking the law.

[nycbos]

18. That is different.

If you are an establishment that serves alcohol and you serve a drink to someone who is visibly drunk, and then that person gets into their car and hurts someone you can be held liable. (To my understanding)

[BannonsLiver]

23. No shoes, no shirt, no service

I still see those signs frequently, and honestly, it doesn't bother me that much. Of course not wanting someone in your restaurant with filthy dirty bare feet or a back full of tufts of hair is a world away from discriminating against someone based on their orientation.

[mr_lebowski]

4. I'd love to see what these 'religious freedom' types that support Sweet Cakes 'plight' would say ...

If a conglomerate led by George Soros bought up the 10 biggest gun manufacturers in the world, and established a strict 'Our Weapons Are For Sale Only to Jews, Gays, and Registered Democrats' policy.

I wonder how fast they'd decide that 'business owners religious freedoms' aren't really so sacrosanct after all ...

[bucolic_frolic]

9. LOL - Gold Star for the day for you

[TlalocW]

7. At times I can understand the other side

I'm mainly an entertainer with balloon twisting, magic, etc. and I wouldn't want to twist balloons for a white supremacist gathering (actually, I would LOVE to do that just to see the train wreck of humanity on display, but for my argument, pretend I'd hate it), and I'd hate to be forced to do it. Of course, I do run my business out of my home so you know, I can lie. "Oh, Trump Rally? Oh, that's your budget? *under breath* figures. Well, when is it? Oh, really? I am TOTALLY booked that day. Sorry!"

On the other hand, I recall some religious assholes in Mississippi upset at their more progressive business owner neighbors putting up stickers that said they serve everyone, and they were trying to say it somehow was an attack on their religious freedom. I always thought if we flipped it and said, "If you don't want to serve gays, etc. based on religious grounds, you don't have to, but you have to put this sticker in your window," would be a good compromise. Eventually, even in Mississippi, the stickered stores would go out of business.

TlalocW

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. The difference is that white supremacists are not a protected group

You can't discriminate in employment against someone based on gender, race, age, religion, or sexual orientation because those are protected groups according to federal law. Most states extend those protections to businesses, housing etc. Sweet Cakes by Melissa was in Oregon. If it were in Texas, they might have gotten away with it.

This case was more complicated though. When the gay couple reported Sweet Cakes to the state, the owners took to Facebook and published the couples' names and home address, subjecting them to harassment and even death threats. I only wish the fine was bigger.

[Solly Mack]

10. K&R

[Miigwech]

11. Religions are apposed to my Constitutional rights to

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" because they don't allow for individual freedom

[bluestarone]

12. i will enjoy this news until

the supreme court gets it! Then i feel i will be disappointed. hope not tho

[BigmanPigman]

15. Their "rights as artists to free speech".

Sure...this subject came up all the time while I attended Art School and got my Bachelor's Of Fine Arts

[politicaljunkie41910]

16. I'm curious whether they paid the fine themselves or do their insurance company cover them

for their discrimination. I hope not. If insurance policy pays for it, that encourages the behavior if you can just write it off as a cost of doing business, and only a small fraction of the fine.

[OliverQ]

22. They received at least $240,000 from right-wing crowd funding

when the incident first happened. They're probably financially fine with all the money they got.

[Gothmog]

17. This is great news

[keithbvadu2]

19. Religious freedom? ... Who decides for whom?

Religious freedom? ... Who decides for whom?

Cool: I must / cannot do it because of my religious beliefs.
..... I decide for myself.

Cool?: You must / cannot do it because of my religious beliefs.
..... I decide for you.

Uncool?: I must / cannot do it because of your religious beliefs.
..... You decide for me?

[Nitram]

20. Good decision. Bias and discrimination cannot be allowed to stand in this democracy.

[OliverQ]

21. Right-wingers going insane over this, saying it's fascism to force

businesses to sell to someone they don't want to.