Americans Rally Behind Christian Bakers, Donate More Than $250,000

Americans Rally Behind Christian Bakers, Donate More Than $250,000 July 9, 2015

An Oregon couple forced to close their bakery after they refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding have become heroes in the culture wars. And now, supporters have raised more than $253,000 for Melissa and Aaron Klein, who wanted to operate their business according to Christian principles.

The Klein family (from the Continue to Give website)
The Klein family (from the Continue to Give website)

A lesbian couple alleged that the Kleins’ refusal had caused them physical, emotional and mental damages. Among the symptoms they’d experienced after the bakers refused their business, they listed “excessive sleep,” “weight gain,” “worry” and “pale and sick at home after work.”

In August 2013, after the lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint with the state of Oregon, the Kleins were forced to close their bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Since the Kleins closed the shop, their income has been cut in half, and Aaron has had to take a job as a trash collector to help make ends meet.

Then in April 2015, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries’Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough recommended a fine of $135,000, which would most certainly bankrupt the young couple. That fine was upheld in a July ruling. One of the lesbian “brides,” Rachel, would receive $75,000 in penalties; her partner Laurel would receive $60,000.

Social Media to the Rescue

But as the Kleins’ predicament has made national headlines, contributions from supporters of traditional marriage have streamed in. The original goal was $150,000, intended to cover the fine and to help the Kleins with their basic living expenses. That fundraising goal has been surpassed; as of this morning, more than $253,500 has been raised for the Klein family. Their website has been shared more than 14,000 times on social media.

The Daily Signal reports that

Originally, the fundraiser was started on GoFundMe in April 2015. Upon raising more than $100,000, the fundraiser was shut down by the site and consequently, GoFundMe changed their policies to prohibit “campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.”

However, the current fundraising web page openly supports the Kleins’ values and addresses the religious liberty violation their family has encountered.

“Every American should be free to live and work according to their faith without the government punishing them for doing so,” the fundraising website’s mission statement says.

If you’d like to support the Kleins, go to the ContinueToGive website. Your contributions will go toward the Kleins’ everyday expenses and any emergencies they may encounter.

"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Let's defer to the experts (namely, the tract writers (tractors?) at Catholic Answers) for a ..."

Heaven Is For Real: Secrets Colton ..."

Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Korou

    Well, just so long as no laws are broken there’s nothing much to object to about people offering financial support to bigots.

    • squishee

      I agree. BTW, I wonder who contributes to your financial well-being?

      • Korou

        My employers, mainly. Why?

    • islandbrewer

      … there’s nothing much to object to about people offering financial support to bigots.

      I disagree – society is rewarding them for being bigots. I object to that. I wonder if I can refuse to serve Catholics, get a complaint, whine about it and start a GoFundMe site. Do I get boatloads of cash just for being a piece of *checks channel* “less than admirable human being”?

      • Korou

        Well, yes – I suppose I should have said that there’s nothing legally wrong with it.
        It really is sad to see good people coming down so firmly and so consistently on the side of hatred and discrimination.

  • S.L. Hansen

    “Bigot” is the wrong word, Korou. The bakers had served this couple in other ways, and were happy to continue doing so. Their religion does not permit them to participate in or condone same sex “marriage”, so their objection was not to the couple, but the ceremony. Freedom of Religion is still a constitutional right in the U.S., in case you didn’t notice.

    Also, do you think a gay person who owns a baker should be forced to bake a cake that says, “Same Sex ‘Marriage’ is Wrong!” No? Do you think a black baker should be forced to bake a cake for the KKK? No? It’s the same kind of thing.

    The payment demanded by the court is ridiculous. $135,000 because they had to go to one of many other bakers in the area and gained weight from drowning their sorrows in too much Ben & Jerry’s? What a joke!

    • cminca

      As someone who’s worked dozens of weddings the baker is not a participant. Neither is the florist or the photographer. They are staff.

      They are no more participating in the wedding than the guy who drove the truck with the wheat to the mill who ground flour that the baker used.

      Your scenarios of a gay or black baker aren’t germane because the anti-discrimination laws don’t cover speech or politics (the KKK).

      Let me ask you this—a Catholic mother and wife of an active duty soldier is driving across the desert at night. She has her three small children with her. She breaks down. She has to walk 2 miles, carrying one child and begging the two exhausted toddlers to keep walking . She arrives at a gas station.

      The Muslim owner refuses to serve her because 1.) she shouldn’t be driving; 2.) she is unaccompanied by a male relative; 3.) her crucifix offend him; 4.) she should not be speaking with a strange man; and 5.) her head is uncovered. He sends her back out into the dark and cold.

      Would you be supporting HIS firmly held religious beliefs?

      • hopemore5

        Your comparison is ridiculous. In your example, there is no other place for the mother to go. In the real world, the homosexuals could have gone to any number of other bakeries. They just wanted to push their lifestyle into the face of people who don’t accept lesbian “marriage”. The bakery did not object to the fact that they were lesbians…..the owners objected to having to support the wedding by their participation. The description of the lesbians “harm” (excessive sleep, weight gain, worry) are most likely the result of their lesbian lifestyle and emotional inability to form a meaningful relationship with a male. It’s a fact that lesbians tend to be overweight. Check it out on Google.

        • cminca

          Sorry–“sincerely held religious beliefs” are the same for Muslims as they are for Christians.

      • S.L. Hansen

        Your comparison is grossly unfair, because the mother and children could actually die in the desert – nobody dies from not having a wedding cake baked by a particular baker. Furthermore (as noted by hopemore5), you’ve set up a scenario where the mother and child had no alternatives, and there are actually lots of bakers in Oregon.

        Providing a creative element for a wedding is participating in a wedding. All of the ‘staff” are participants in the wedding. If they weren’t doing something (participating), they wouldn’t be “staff”, now would they?

        I take it that you agree with me that a black baker shouldn’t be forced to bake for the KKK, and a gay baker shouldn’t be forced to make a “Same Sex ‘Marriage’ is Wrong” cake. It’s too bad you think that you and the law can discriminate against Christians. Might want to read the Bill of Rights.

        • cminca

          Sorry–but the Muslim’s “sincerely held religious belief” is as relevant as yours. So answer the question–support or no?

          • S.L. Hansen

            No person has the right to ENDANGER ANOTHER PERSON’S LIFE because of their religion, so no, I would not support the Muslim in the preposterous scenario you concocted.

            That’s a far, far cry from a wedding cake, which could be (and was) purchased elsewhere.

          • cminca

            Yep–the wedding cake could be purchased elsewhere.

            And those “boys” didn’t have to eat at the Greensboro Woolworth counter–they could have been served elsewhere.

            And Rosa could have sat on a different seat on the bus. The ones where she “belonged” still go to the destination.

            And no one’s life was endangered.

            (You beginning to get the picture?)

          • S.L. Hansen

            What you seem to be ignoring is that the bakers were happy to serve the couple in all other ways. The African Americans denied service at the Greensboro Woolworth counter were denied ALL service – and beaten, spit upon, etc. when they asked for service. These bakers were not objecting to the PEOPLE or condemning the PEOPLE but only objecting to ONE CEREMONY.

            I have a firm grip on the picture, but you’re trying to make it appear that something was happening that wasn’t.

          • cminca

            You don’t have a clue about the picture. To continue would be futile.

          • Korou

            “Your comparison is grossly unfair, because the mother and children could
            actually die in the desert – nobody dies from not having a wedding cake
            baked by a particular baker.”
            Irrelevant. It’s the principle of the thing.

          • S.L. Hansen

            Perfectly relevant because one scenario is clearly a matter of life and death and the other is just a party.

          • Korou

            I’m afraid that’s just a difference of degree, no substance. Unjust discrimination is still wrong, whether it’s a major or minor matter.

      • Re Ja

        “As someone who’s worked dozens of weddings the baker is not a participant.”

        Only if you define participant in the narrowest of ways. Actually, I don’t think you’ve ever worked or planned a wedding. Anyone who has any knowledge of what wedding vendors do and how much time they spend with the couple making plans and creating and executing custom designs would never make that claim. Wedding vendors often have more involvement than the average groomsman or bridesmaid in helping plan and execute their part of the wedding day events.

        • cminca

          Well, you are wrong.

        • cminca

          I’ll ask you another set of questions–

          When did you ever hear the best man stand up and introduce–the florist?

          When did you last see the photographer listed in the program for a wedding?

          When did you last see the baker reference in the invitation?

          “Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Goldsmith request the honor of your presence at the marriage of their daughter Holly Sue to Mr. Anthony Havers….Reception to follow…..Cake by Sweet Desserts”?

          Can’t wait to get your response.

          • S.L. Hansen

            I have been to weddings where the florist was recognized, and every wedding album I have looked at has identified the photographer. I have seen florists, photographers, wedding planners, caterers, bakers, musicians and singers listed in wedding programs.

          • cminca

            A wedding album produced by the photographer would, of course, have a logo on it.

            As for the rest of your claim–I think you are breaking one of the big 10. #9 in particular.

          • S.L. Hansen

            LOL, nope. I used to work in advertising. Several of my co-workers got sponsorships from various vendors – a 5-15% discount in exchange for publicizing what services were provided. And yeah, that’s a real thing: http://www.budgetblonde.com/2013/09/12/get-your-wedding-sponsored/

          • cminca

            And what you are talking about is an advertising gimmick.
            Over and OUT.

    • Korou

      No, bigot is exactly the right word: a person who is “hates or refuses to accept” members of a group. I accept that this is because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, but that doesn’t excuse their breaking the law.
      Like I said – there’s nothing illegal about being a bigot. You have the freedom to subscribe to as hateful a religion as you wish, and hold whichever views you wish. But they broke the law that said they could not discriminate on the basis of gender, religion or sexuality.
      Baking a cake is not a religious practice. Their freedom of religion was not being infringed upon, but the couple’s freedom was infringed upon by their refusal. They were discriminated against.
      No, I don’t think that a gay baker should be forced to bake a cake that says “Same sex ‘Marriage’ is wrong”. Nor should this baker have been forced to bake a cake which says, for example, “Catholics are silly”. But baking wedding cakes is their job, and refusing to do so on the basis of a couple’s sexuality is discrimination.
      Yes, I do think a black baker should be required to bake a cake for members of the KKK. It is in no way the same thing, and I’m surprised you think it is. Are you suggesting that black people should cut off all connection with people who may be in the KKK? That they should find, on going to the doctor’s or the supermarket or a restaurant, that people refuse to serve them?
      On the other hand if, for example, the Grand Wizard of the KKK required a black baker to make a cake saying “All n***ers should be hung” then yes, the baker could and should refuse to do so.

      • S.L. Hansen

        “Bigot” is a wrong word because the bakers DON’T hate the people or refuse to accept the people – they were happy to serve this couple and would have continued to do so in any capacity except the wedding cake. They did not object to the PEOPLE but the CEREMONY.

        Baking a cake might not seem like a religious practice to you but for certain kinds of Christians, they are supposed to do everything in their lives as an offering to God. Yes, even sweeping the floors, changing to oil on a car, scrubbing a toilet, running the quarterly report for their company or directing traffic – *whatever* they do is a religious act. I get that YOU don’t think that way – there are many who don’t – but the freedom of religion protects the people who DO think that way.

        Some bakeries don’t do wedding cakes, btw. At all. There’s a French bakery in my town and they make bread and pastries. I know people who have asked them to make wedding cakes, and they just say, “We don’t do that.” So please give up your ridiculous notion that ANY baker is REQUIRED to make a wedding cake. It’s a baker’s job only if the baker chooses to accept the job, and that’s it. ANY business has a right to say, “Sorry, we can’t accommodate you.” If I wanted my mini-van painted to look like a armadillo, the auto painter guy could say, “Uh, sorry, I’m not going to do that.” If I went to a tattoo artist and asked them to tattoo my entire back with the Star Trek emblem, the tattoo artist could say, “Uh, sorry, but I’m not going to do what I’m sure you will regret later.”

        If I don’t like it, I can go elsewhere. I can even campaign with all my armadillo-loving, Star Trek dweebie friends to never patronize those businesses again. But I should not have to FORCE any business to create any particular, non-essential luxury item.

        It’s called free enterprise.

        • cminca

          It is called a business license.

          It is called anti-discrimination legislation.

          Why are Christians entitled to “special rights” not to follow them?

          Or don’t you mind it if I dust off my “no Catholics need apply” sign?

        • cminca

          BTW–would you please learn the law? Your paint job and your tattoo were not denied because of WHO YOU ARE.

          And the French baker is actually an example of how the law DOES work–if the baker doesn’t want to bake wedding cakes for ALL the public they are free to not bake wedding cakes for ANY of the public.

          Please try and understand the actual relevant issues before you comment.

        • Korou

          “”Bigot” is a wrong word because the bakers DON’T hate the people or refuse to accept the people”
          Well, the question of whether or not they hate them is a debate we can have at another time. From the couple’s point of view, being told that you and the love you hold for your partner are “abominations” feels pretty much like hatred. but refusal to accept them? Absolutely.

          You say they didn’t object to the people but the ceremony – but that ceremony was a celebration of the love the two people feel for each other.

          “Yes, even sweeping the floors, changing to oil on a car, scrubbing a toilet, running the quarterly report for their company or directing traffic – *whatever* they do is a religious act.”
          They are quite free to bake the cake in as religious a manner as they wish – but refusing to serve customers on the basis of sexuality is discrimination, and if they insist on breaking the law then they should not operate a bakery.

        • Korou

          “It’s a baker’s job only if the baker chooses to accept the job, and that’s it. ANY business has a right to say, “Sorry, we can’t accommodate you.” If I wanted my mini-van painted to look like a armadillo, the auto painter guy could say, “Uh, sorry, I’m not going to do that.”

          And what if you said to him, “But I’ve seen you do it for loads of other people. You advertise it and have prices set for it. Why won’t you do it for me?”
          If he then says “I’ll do it for other people but not for you, because you’re a Catholic.”
          You could and should sue him for that.
          See the difference?

          Any business does NOT have the right to say “Sorry, I’m not going to do that”. They do not have the right to refuse service to black people, gay people or Catholic people just because they disagree with or dislike them. To do so is called discrimination, and it’s illegal.

          • S.L. Hansen

            So, what if an anti-abortion group wants their van painted with messaging according to their cause. Do you think the auto painting company should be FORCED to do it? Or do they have the freedom as U.S. Citizens to say, “Sorry, but I disagree with your philosophy on this and I think you should go elsewhere.”

            A business DOES have the right to refuse to participate in what the believe is ethically wrong.

            But even if you are right and it qualifies as discrimination against human rights, trading one form of discrimination (against homosexuals) for another (against Christians who don’t believe in same-sex marriage) is not progress and not American.

          • Korou

            If an anti-abortion group wanted their van painted then the auto company should be required to do it, yes.
            However, if an anti-abortion group wanted their van painted with a discriminatory message – for example, “gays are evil” then no, the auto company would be quite within their rights to refuse to do it.
            Do you see the difference?
            Some Christians have tried to hit back at gay rights by playing turnabout. The only thing is, it doesn’t work. If you’re a Christian and you go into a bakery and ask them to make you a cake they’re not going to refuse you. All you’ve shown is that you can buy a cake!So when Bill Jack, whose case you may have heard of, decided to stage a protest he was forced to ask for something he knew a bakery would not do: ask for a cake with bigoted anti-gay messages on it. The baker refused, he tried to sue them. But he ran into the same problem you’re facing: there’s nothing wrong with refusing to serve a customer who wants you to write bigoted, hateful and/or discriminatory messages:
            http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/04/03/state-finds-no-discrimination-after-shop-refuses-anti-gay-cake/25268515/

    • Korou

      “The payment demanded by the court is ridiculous. $135,000 because they
      had to go to one of many other bakers in the area and gained weight from
      drowning their sorrows in too much Ben & Jerry’s? What a joke!”

      I take it, then, that you’re not aware of how:
      – When Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed the complaint she did so on her smartphone. Because of this she was not shown the disclaimer which said that her name and address would be sent to the person against whom the claim was being made.
      – What do you think Aaron Klein did when he found out about this? He placed the complaint in full on facebook, including the names, address and contact details of the couple in question.
      – This resulted in the Bowman-Cryers being harassed in the most horrible manner, including death threats and the dangers of losing their foster children.

      Do you still feel they were not put to any trouble?

      • cminca

        but…but…but…..Christians are NEVER wrong!!!!!

      • S.L. Hansen

        I think that Aaron Klein was wrong to post the name, address and any other personal details about the coupe on Facebook. TERRIBLY wrong, and he should own up to it, apologize, pay legitimate damages, etc. I still think the total is crazy high, since the couple has been able to adopt their foster kids, so obviously the threat of “losing” them was not valid.

        BTW, the Kleins have also been harassed in a most horrible manner, including death threats, and loss of livelihood – that last one by the government.

        (That’s probably your cue to say, “BUT THEY DESERVE IT!”

        • Korou

          I’m very glad that you acknowledge this. Once we agree that the bakers were indeed terribly wrong and that they should own up to it – rather than proudly and defiantly insist that they did nothing wrong – then the amount they need to pay becomes a detail.
          And no, they didn’t deserve to get death threats, but as to loss of livelihood – well, that’s just the free market, isn’t it? People apparently don’t want to buy their cakes from bigots.

          • S.L. Hansen

            See, we do agree on something!

            But the GOVERNMENT bankrupting their business by imposing a huge fine is not free market. Free market means CONSUMERS don’t shop at their bakery because of a difference in values. I think the judge was unreasonable in the level of fines set.

            I do think the Kleins should have paid a fine for publicizing personal information of the couple. And, incidentally, I didn’t send them any money because of their actions in publicizing the couple’s personal information.

          • Korou

            Good for you. Really!
            And you’re right, the government fining a business is not the free market. It’s the law. Considering the circumstances – discrimination, harassment, unrepentant breaking of the law – I don’t think the fine was unreasonable.
            If the Kleins had not followed up the discrimination by calling the couple an abomination; if they had not recklessly endangered their lives and wellbeing by making them a target for harassment; if the Kleins had shown any kind of repentance or recognition of their wrongdoing; if any of these had happened then no doubt the penalty should have and would have been lesser.

      • Ronk

        “”their” [sic] foster children”.

        Says it all really about how absolutely morally bankrupt these two and their supporters are. Children are not a commodity to be picked up like a pound puppy as a lifestyle accessory.

        I certainly hope and pray that these children will be removed from danger. It would be the one good thing that comes out of this.

        • Korou

          I know, it’s disgusting, isn’t it? Filthy homosexuals, pretending to be just like real people.

      • AJ

        With all the funds they raised, they could pay the 135K fine and STILL be financially a lot better off than the lesbian bridezillas who sued them! 🙂

      • James Bogardus

        Youre a dumbass. Any privately owned business can turn down whatever the hell they want, and for the poor lesbos to get all butthurt, filing a claim that did indeed reveal their personal information, they deserved the ridicule based off the premise they were so butthurt they cried over someone denying them service. If they would’ve moved on like I wouldve, or “most” other people, shit never would’ve started in the first place. Nope, not a christian. I think they’re radical nutjobs, kind of like homosexuals serve no scientific purpose. You two groups are made for eachother, destined to piss and moan for eternity while the rest of us try and figure out this cluster f*ck of a world we’re living in. How about you two stop toting around ropes to hang each other with and do it already.

        • Korou

          Ah, so you’re not an ignorant Christian bigot. Just an ignorant bigot. Thanks for clearing that up.
          No, any privately owned business can’t turn down whatever they want. Because they aren’t allowed to discriminate on grounds of race, sexuality or gender. In other words, if you need it explained, you can’t say “We sell wedding cakes, except to gay people.”
          This means the Kleins broke the law, which is why they were reported and found guilty.
          Which means you shouldn’t be so quick to call people dumbasses.

          • James Bogardus

            And youre obviously a dumbass with no self worth whos subservient to anyone.

          • Korou

            Oh, insults. Yawn.

          • James Bogardus

            Do you understand that. If you ask me to weld something out for you, if you ask me to build the foundation of your home, if you ask me to do anything for you, and I simply dont like your stupid face, I dont have to do anything for you. Welcome to the free world…

          • Korou

            Sigh. It is, in fact, illegal to do that. Specifically, in the state where this happened, it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of race, religion or sexuality.
            You may disagree with the law but it does exist, and the Sweet Cakes Bakery were punished for breaking it.
            I’m sure you’ll be glad to be corrected and ready with an apology now that you understand your misconception.

  • Joseph Lukowski

    “Among the symptoms they’d experienced after the bakers refused their business, they listed “excessive sleep,” “weight gain,” “worry” and “pale and sick at home after work.” ” you mean I can sue for my daily activity ; )

  • me, myself & I r all here

    In English, the term also came to be applied to persons who hold stubbornly to any system of beliefs, and by extension, persons who are intolerant of those that differ from them in any way……. bi got…. so, Korn almost got it right…. those les beans stubbornly hold to the belief that anyone who disagrees with them should be punished, first $, next prison, then silencing…. Oh wait, the silencing was also “imposed” by our tolerant gov’t who gives us our “rights.”

    • cminca

      Why do Christians feel they are entitled to “special rights”?
      If the bakery cannot bake a wedding cake for a SS couple, then they shouldn’t sell anyone a wedding cake. Simple.

      • Tom McKenna

        Thanks, comrade. Glad to know that you believe people give up their right to free exercise of religion by opening a business. A novel idea, but hey, the rule of law is out the window these days. It’s all about power and oppressing dissent.

        • cminca

          It is called a business license. You go in business, you get a license, you serve the public.

          (But please continue your persecution meme. I love watching a bad actress ranting away in a cheap film noir. lol.)

          • S.L. Hansen

            Free enterprise system. The government is not supposed to force a business owner to conduct business in any way they consider to be unethical or immoral.

          • cminca

            Substitute “hispanic” or “black” or “female” into any of your stories about “persecuted” Christians–see how it reads. Ask yourself if it would be allowed in 2015 in the US. Then get back to us.

    • Korou

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
      “a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)”
      For example, a person who considers lesbians to be an abomination.
      Oh sorry, you were saying it was the couple who were bigots? Sorry, no: since the bakery was breaking the law, they were not just within their rights but quite correct to report them. What else should they have done? When you see someone breaking the law you report them.
      And by the way, the “silencing” did not mean the bigoted bakery could not talk about its views; it just meant that it was restrained from talking about how it would not serve gay people – for the simple reason that such a refusal is an illegal act, and businesses are not allowed to advertise the fact that they break the law.

  • Tom McKenna

    Ah, the face of the Left, exposed finally. Intolerant, wanting to shut down and shut up any who oppose their agenda, even if it means trashing the right of association and the free exercise of religion. 1)Cakes for a wedding are not essential items, it’s not as if these business owners are depriving the homosexuals of food, shelter, or transportation. 2) If you draw a circle on a map in a 10 mile radius of the bakers’ shop, I hazard to guess you’d find many bakeries happy to take the homosexuals’ money. But no, the point is not to be reasonable and accommodate peoples’ basic religious beliefs in a pluralistic society, it’s to sue, punish, disgrace, and denigrate any who oppose the Leftist/homosexual agenda.

    • cminca

      Tell me–why are Christians entitled to the “special right” of discrimination?

      I mean–seats in the front of the bus are not essentially different, and if you draw a circle on the map in a 10 mile radius of the Greensboro Woolworth’s lunch counter I’m sure you would have found a lunch counter happy to serve Negros. “Those people” were just being intolerant. Surely they could have been “reasonable and accommodate peoples’ basic religious belief” that blacks were inferior. Right?

      • S.L. Hansen

        It’s not discrimination, since the bakers had previously served the couple and would have continued to do so in every capacity other than baking them a wedding cake for a ceremony their religion does not let them participate in.

        I wouldn’t demand a Jewish person who owns a kosher deli to provide ham sandwiches at my event. I would not demand a Muslim caterer to serve alcohol at my event. I would not demand a Seventh Day Adventist caterer to serve my event on a Saturday. It’s part of freedom of religion.

        • cminca

          You really don’t understand the legal concept at all.

          The kosher deli doesn’t serve ham to ANYONE. The Muslim caterer doesn’t serve alcohol to ANYONE. The Seventh Day Adventist doesn’t cater on Saturday to ANYONE.

          You are conflating the baker with a Kosher Deli that is fine selling ham to Jews, just not Christians. A Muslim caterer who is fine serving alcohol to Muslims, just not Christians. A Seventh Day Adventist who is fine working on a Saturday for 7th-Dayers, just not others.

          For this to be the same the baker, the florist, or the photographer would have to be denying these goods and services (wedding cakes, flowers, or photos) to EVERYONE.

          Now do you understand?

          • Korou

            Exactly right. Thank you, cminca.

          • S.L. Hansen

            The kosher deil doesn’t serve ham to ANYONE because of their religious beliefs. The Muslim caterer doesn’t serve alcohol to ANYONE because of their religious beliefs. The 7th Day faction doesn’t work on Saturday at all because of their religious beliefs.

            And the government can’t make them.

            Christians who believe it is against their religion to provide any help at all in a marriage between two people of the same gender should be under the same protection.

  • Maggie

    Hell hath no fury as that of a woman scorned. (or a lesbian or a militant sodomite who does not get their way) And they, all intolerant and bigoted, will make you pay! And take your home and business and spit on you too perhaps. Travesty. Take a look at a ‘pride’ parade and see if you are not outraged. Public nudity is a sign of the demonic by the way.

  • Dave

    This money should be used to start a fund to hire lawyers to find causes of action to sue these gay couples to put them on the defensive. It is clear they are attempting to harm these owners of bake shops rather than sue for discrimination. This seperate of millishious action could win in court. Remember a jury will be of people like us not them.

    • Korou

      Ah, the face of the right, finally exposed. Bullies ganging up on minorities.
      Not fair to say “finally exposed”, of course, because this is what you’ve been doing for centuries. What’s happening now is that you’re being stopped from your bullying and, like true bullies, you resent it.

      • Dave

        Me think thou doth protesteth too much !

        • Korou

          Think’st thou so? Perchance thou’rt unaware of the death threats and other forms of harassment the couple received after their names, address and contact details were posted online by the bakery without asking permission.

    • Korou

      I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts of the case. A jury that has done so will, no doubt, come to the same legally and morally correct decision which has already been reached.

  • Ronk

    I’m not condemning all those generous people who donated, but I wouldn’t want to donate money that will go into the pockets of the two Christophobes/gamophobes who brought this evil lawsuit. Ideally the Kleins would tell the Court that they WON’T be paying this immoral fine and defy the Court to put them in gaol.

    I know that’s easy for others to say and that they have a young family to care for, but it seems the time is coming when anyone who upholds the meaning of marriage will have