Only Bakery in All of Oregon Cruelly Refuses to Serve Pathetic Gay Martyrs

Oh. Wait. You mean there are lots of bakeries who would serve these guys but this guy is being singled out and made an example of by the Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance? Who could possibly have foreseen that?

Tolerance is not Enough. You. MUST. Approve. Or you *WILL* be destroyed!

"How is it that my long comment from 2 days ago (discussing the ASP 2017 ..."

I had Lillian Vogl, the Chairwoman ..."
"Honestly, as a Soviet history buff I’m kind of impressed to see Beria back in ..."

Australian Conservatives are Catching the American ..."
"I would emphasize that 1 Corinthians 12 actually somewhat subverts the typical hierarchical use of ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Hi Linda, there is not a conflict between the ASP and IDP. IDP has become ..."

I had Lillian Vogl, the Chairwoman ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sean O

    You can see it coming. This will be the strategy to dismantle the Catholic Church. Use the “law” once it is in place to cudgel the Church over the head for discrimination for not violating & overturning Church beliefs & tradition. Just like HHS directive demanding the Church provide medical coverage for birth control & abortion. Break the Church with the “Law”.

  • Tominellay

    I’m not a lawyer; I can’t believe the baker will lose. He didn’t refuse to sell the goods in his store. He declined to enter a contract for a cake sale in the future. Aren’t all laws based on contract law? Absent a contract, the state can’t force him to bake that cake, can’t fine him for not baking it. I wonder, though, if the courts will get around this obstacle by ruling that the baker’s purchase of a business license from the local government obligates him to work as a baker for same-sex wedding parties.

    • The baker doesn’t have to lose the case to lose his time and money. Is the baker a public accommodation, like Woolworth’s lunch-counter? It would be interesting if the state used against Christians the powers we gave it to fight racial discrimination. Surely that won’t happen.

      • Scott W.

        Indeed. As they say, the process is the punishment.

    • NoahLuck

      Oregon’s law requires that, to have a business license in the state, you may not refuse service to people on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, etc. The baker chose to make his reasons for discrimination public rather than keeping them to himself, and those reasons are legally prohibited. So yeah, he’ll lose the case.

  • Thinkling

    The amazing thing about this case is that orientation has absolutely nothing to do with it. This case has zero merit.

    If one of these women came into the store with Elton John (say; bear with me here), and the two of them tried to get services for their wedding, there would be No. Issue. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this establishment’s business practice.

    Rather this is all about validating and affirming the GM chimera, the disordered union these women envision.

  • JC

    And this in a state whose constitution already defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, meaning that in Oregon “gay marriage” is not even a legal fiction. Ballot measure 36 (2004) passed overwhelmingly and was upheld by the state’s supreme court, so I’m not seeing where there are legal grounds for this lawsuit to begin with. Since the issue of so-called gay marriage is already heading to the US Supreme Court, this lawsuit wouldn’t even potentially accomplish a victory for the so-called gay rights movement. Instead, it wastes the baker’s time and money (for which he ought to counter-sue in a big way), and in the even that the decision goes against him, basically means that he is being subjected to an ex post facto law. I suppose that when your end-goal is to try and redefine reality, little things like the Constitution and the entire concept of rule by law–to say nothing of a consistent application of existing laws rather than a capricious application of our latest whims–become small matters.

  • This Oregon case is actually what I was thinking of when I posted this in the Neuhas’ Law thread the other day, if I may repeat myself:

    There was an interesting recently proposed law in the New Hampshire Legislature to protect bakers, photographers, etc., from forced complicity with gay civil nuptials.

    The bill would put an exemption in state marriage law. The proposed text says no person, including a business owner or employee, should be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for wedding services in “violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith.”


    • I should note, btw, that online sellers on Etsy and suchlike may be asked to cater to gay civil nuptials in other states. So even if you live in a state that doesn’t have gay civil unions of any description, it might be prudent to seek to get a law like this through your state legislature. Frankly, considering the likelihood that the Supreme Court will mandate gay civil “marriages” nationally in the near future, orthodox Christians in wedding-related industries in states that currently do not have any kind of gay civil nuptials may very soon have cause to be grateful for a law like this already being on the books.

  • Thomas Tucker

    Minority view here: just bake the cake. You don’t have to agree with people to provide them a business service, and you will actually have more influence with them if you befriend them. Baking their cake doesn’t mean you agree with them.

    • kmk

      What about renting one’s house to an unmarried couple?

    • Katheryn

      I wonder if their mentality was more hesitation because they did not want to help facilitate the near occasion of sin.

    • Beadgirl

      That’s kind of what I was wondering. I get not wanting to perform or host a same-sex marriage in violation of one’s conscience, or not wanting to cater or photograph one because it would require you to attend it. But how far do you take this? If, for example, a Catholic owns a dress shop and a woman comes in to buy one, mentioning in the process she will use it for her wedding to another woman, should the owner refuse the business? Or a man enters a stationary store to buy a fancy pen to write the invitations to his wedding to another man?

    • Mark Shea

      I have no problem with your approach. I have a huge problem with the homofascists bringing down the power of the state on the head of some guy just to smash his conscience and make an example of him.

  • Katheryn

    If they had merely ordered a cake without flying their hysterical pride flag, this wouldn’t be a problem. The baker didnt need to know that this was for an abomination. They obviously targeted this Christian, and now with all of their antics, they get money and fame. If this wasn’t some plot for destruction, then they would have gone to their faaaaaaaaaabulous local gay baker (don’t tell me you’ve never heard of a gay pastry chef), who would have been happy to oblige and take their money.

    • Andy

      Based on the article I don’t know if they targeted the bakery or the owners. In reading the article the person taking the order asked a question and the answer was two brides. As far as going to the “faaaaaaaaaabulous local gay baker” – maybe this bakery is the best in town. I think a law suit is stupid and a waste of everyone’s time and money, but I don’t think saying this was deliberate attempt based on the linked article is helpful to anyone.

      • Katheryn

        I’m just trying to ask why they wouldn’t want to support “their own” as a way of advancing their cause as opposed to taking someone down because they don’t think it’s fair that they can’t have what they want. When Irish and Italian immigrants were unable to receive services and jobs because of their nationality, they formed their own communities and eventually integrated by supporting “their own.” The Knights of Columbus come to mind as such an example. They didn’t pout and threaten lawsuits, they adapted and found their own ways to prosper.

        • Andy

          “their own” an interesting phrase – so these people are not the same as we are – and then “straights” wonder why gays say that straights are out to get them, they are discriminated against. As I said maybe this is the best bakery in town – so “this couple’s” money isn’t good enough? I fully support the bakery’s right to enter into a contract with whoever they want or not to enter into a contract with whomever they want. I think a law suit is stupid.
          However, you missed my point and then reinforced why what I said was important – My concern is that we we say people are different and should support” their own” it is discrimination. Form you own community – “stay away from me” because you are inferior. The ghettos of the Italians and Irish were horrendous, because the American already here saw them as inferior. They did not integrate by supporting their own they became integrated as society changed and new groups replaced them as inferior.

          • Dale Price

            Yeah, but it runs both ways–this kind of legal snit fit leads Christians to think gays are trying to marginalize *them.* Ditto the Human Rights Campaign’s trashing of the “local option” proposal for the BSA. It’s becoming a zero-sum, winner-take-all game, and there is no trust possible in that scenario.

            • Andy

              there in lies the problem – we do not trust one another – we are becoming more and more tribal – more and more willing to marginalize people we disagree with. As in another post on Marks page about impeaching Obama – I said our country is becoming more and more fractured – and with each passing day the fractures become larger. I agree it is becoming a zero-sum winner-take-all game but eventually somebody has to stop playing it.

              • Dale Price

                I agree entirely–the fissures become a little more obvious every single day.

                But short of a massive shock to the system, there is no way anyone will abandon the field.

          • Katheryn

            I was referring to “their own” in the same sense that the Irish and Italians came to rely on one another. The quotes were intended to indicate that.
            It is not that the money of the lesbians was inferior, it was their intention for the product that was inferior. It is morally licit to “discriminate” against what one finds to be sinful.

      • Ed the Roman

        It’s helpful if it’s true.

      • A Portlander

        Andy, here’s a sketch of the bigger picture: Gresham is a small-to-medium-sized town just outside the eastern edge of Portland’s city limits. Though they acknowledge their proximity to and cooperation with the greater Portland area, they don’t look at themselves as Portland – culturally, it’s much more conservative and small-towny. (For example, it’s similar to the difference between Los Angeles and Orange County.)

        If the couple were from Gresham, Sweet Cakes might well be the best bakery in town – and, there’s the fact that they purchased a cake from there previously. However, if they are Portlanders and they wanted “the best in town”, there are a great number of very well-known, highest-quality bakeries in the city who wouldn’t have batted an eye at an order for a same-sex wedding. In contrast, Sweet Cakes is in a strip mall and has crosses and Bible verses on the wall everywhere. Having lived here most of my life, it’s hard for me not to suspect that the Christian business was targeted for a complaint – that is, for punishment, to be made an example of, as part of a campaign to create enough momentum to legalize same-sex marriage a couple years from now.

        • Andy

          My original comment was that based on the article we can’t say that. What you describe the crosses and the Bible references present offers new insights. I agree by the way that the idea of a law suit is idiotic, my concern is making comments from information not in place. Thank you for sharing the new information with me.

          • Katheryn

            Does that make my comments a little less offensive/make more sense?

            • Andy

              If you had mentioned the crosses and Bible references in the store I would not have commented – in fact I might have agreed –

              • Katheryn

                Yeah these people are very publicly Christian. I think I was going off the NCR article.

  • GaryB

    We will not tolerate intolerance!

  • Well, now I living in Portland shall go out of my way to go to this bakery and buy stuff in support of them. Good for them! These things will obviously need to be hatched out in court because this is just going to keep going and I pray that Christians will be able to get more legal protections out of this mess.

    • Sus

      I wonder how many people will go out of their way NOT to shop at this bakery. They could end up going out of business because they have offended people.

      • Maybe, maybe not. The last time this sort of thing happened, business boomed. From EWTN:

        “A cake shop in Lakewood, Colo. faced a petition and a boycott in July 2012 after its owner declined to create a cake for a same-sex male couple, also citing his Christian beliefs. He said the media controversy helped business at the bakery to double.”

        A boycott from 10% of the population may not be the most terrifying thing possible for a business.

        • Sus

          The supporters of gay marriage are more than 10% of the population.

          • Scott W.

            You are right that supporters of gay marriage are more than 10%. Here is a quote from a man with same-sex attraction committed to chastity describing them:

            The worst, by far, are heterosexuals, who are all about gay rights, though. This may be because they are the majority, but in a certain way I think it’s deeper than that. I think their defending of homosexuals is driven by a couple things. One, it comes from this weird perverted notion that you always have to protect the weak and “not judge” No Matter What. It’s derived, I think, from Christian notions of love, but it has to turned into this terrible monster known as modern liberalism. It’s actually become the case that defending the weak is more important than identifying the truth. This whole idea is rampant, and it’s pretty much suffocating to any real discussion on moral issues. “Don’t judge! What makes your life any better! You’re just filled with hate!” etc. etc. etc. Everyone has to be equal, no matter the stakes, no matter what. If you imply Anything to the contrary, you’re basically Hitler who wants to kill all gay people. And while this push is definitely from the gay community (it’s how they gain their power), it’s most strong (and most despicable) from straight people. It’s despicable because they don’t know what they’re doing. They just bandwagon on someone else’s slave morality to the degradation of everything around them. And worst of all, they’re Zealous about it. They get mad, scary mad about it.

            • Chris M

              I think another reason for the large support by non-SSA folks is because the trend is towards sex without consequences and very few restrictions. Given that, it’s only ‘natural’ to go ahead and toss out the sexual taboos one by one. Serial monogamy has become the norm. Now Homosexuality.. polyamory.. then.. etc. etc. We keep getting told that this is a silly slippery slope argument, but we’re still seeing it happen, aren’t we?

              • thomas tucker

                Interesting how this coincides with the failure to recognize natural law. And the increasing inability, or unwillingness, to understand and use the categories of normal and abnormal.

            • Yeah I used to be of the “what could it hurt?” crowd. “Who am I to say what they can and can’t do blah blah blah…” But then stuff like this started happening where they started becoming the thought police and it’s obvious if you’re a Christian, they will make it very difficult for you to stand by and practice your own beliefs. Gay marriage isn’t even legal in the state of Oregon and look what they’re already doing to this business owner. As Mark continues to drum down “Tolerance is not enough! You must approve!”

        • Arnold

          Gays are not 10% of the population (my assumption of what you meant) but closer to 2% based on extensive surveys in the USA and Canada. That 10% fiction was originally asserted by Kinsey based on a greatly and deliberately flawed study. In that small Oregon city the percentage is probably even smaller. Maybe supporters in the overall straight community would up the potential percentage of the boycotting public but I really doubt that would happen.

      • Stu

        I read in another article that business had doubled.

      • That’s their right not to go to that bakery. But with the whole chick-fil-a incident , their business was booming. Even people that supported gay marriage showed up at chick-fil-a because it’s one thing if someone’s feelings get hurt. A whole other if getting the state or government involved in trying to force a business to go against their religious beliefs. The owner said he serves gays all the time. He just doesn’t want to make them a wedding cake because he doesn’t believe in gay marriage and that’s his religious belief and he shouldn’t have to be forced by the government to go against them. But if that means he loses his gay clientele well no one is forcing them to patron his bakery either.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    It appears that the Boy Scouts punted on their issue this morning. They’ll make the national decision in May. I hope that this is good news.

  • A Portlander

    A couple years ago during the height of the “Occupy _____” movement, a local Portland police officer walked into a coffee shop in SE Portland during his break. The barista (/owner, as I recall), being a sympathizer with Occupy’s values and deeply antagonistic toward recent police tactics as well as the ‘establishment authority’ the police represent, _refused to serve him_. He was surprised, but didn’t argue; he simply turned to walk out. A coffee shop patron saw this exchange, and then went up to the barista and purchased another cup of coffee; she took it outside to give to the police officer in a show of her sympathy and shock at the barista’s behavior.

    Did the cop lodge a formal complaint or sue? No. Though he was personally disrespected by these folks, he simply acknowledged their point of view and left it there. In later interviews, he said that he actually understood their feelings and reasons for refusing him service, and simply made a decision not to make a scene or cause a conflict that would further exacerbate tensions in the city between young people and the police.

    Comparing these similar incidents, who is reaching for the power of the state to crush dissenters whose beliefs insulted them? The lesbian couple. Who’s the bully now, eh?

  • SouthCoast

    A prostitute has the legal right to say “no” to a customer, no matter how “hurt” the customer may feel. If the customer ignores that “no”, it’s called rape. But a baker can have his conscience raped with impunity? Uh-huh…

  • Stu

    I’d make their cake. I’d make it with the best ingredients possible. But I would sub-optimize the presentation. They wouldn’t come back and nor would their associates.

    But if someone refused to bake a cake for me because I am Catholic. I’d thank him for being honest and tell all my friends. What’s the big deal.

    Who knew that homosexuals were so sensitive?

    • Sus

      “sub-optimize the presentation”


      • Stu

        Sure. Not motivated to do my “best work.”

        It would be adequate.

        • Sus

          If one of my kids said something like that, they would be writing “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” 500 times

          • Stu

            And if I were one of your kids, I would comply in a simply adequate manner.

            They want a cake, I’d give them a cake. I wouldn’t waste my time giving them anything above the bare minimum.

            But if I ever attempt to force a homosexual bakery to do make me a cake agains their will, I will expect them to do just an “adequate” job.

          • Wow! One tiny verse taken waaaaaay out of context, yet again.

  • Jen

    Where do we draw the line for all this proposed discrimination?
    What if they want to buy groceries to cater their wedding?
    What about the gas for their cars to get to the wedding?
    A hotel room?
    Service at a restaurant?
    Airline tickets for their honeymoon?

    • Andy, Bad Person

      If you can’t see the difference between groceries, gas, and a wedding cake, then there’s no arguing with you.

    • Dale Price

      It’s not as hard as you think: if it involves coerced attendance, customized goods or similar skilled personalized service, e.g., photography of an event, baking a cake, ice-sculpting, etc., you are basically forcing that person into servitude. That’s where the conscience line comes into bold relief. You can’t “rent me” against my will.

  • Lynda

    It is a function of human nature that a person has the right to freely determine with whom he trades. It is an essential aspect of the freedom to transact business in the first place. Without that freedom, the person is subjugated to the control of the state – against natural law, justice, etc. As a moral agent a person has moral duties towards others, some of which may be enforced by the state for the common good, e.g., the right not to be killed. However, not only is there not a moral duty to provide services for that which is intrinsically evil, such as sexual activities or relationships between two people of the same sex, but there is a positive moral duty not to do so as it would involve cooperating, facilitating or supporting intrinsic evil.

  • Vinolentus

    Thanks for posting this, Mark, but just be aware that what you wrote could have given a casual reader the impression that the baker had refused to serve a gay couple, whereas in fact he had not refused to serve anyone, he had just said he was not willing to bake a cake promoting homosexuality.