Oregon fines couple who refused to bake a same-sex cake $135K, also ordering them to shut up

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Fascists: Oregon’s labor commissioner has now imposed a $135,000 fine on the owners of a bankrupt bakery business for refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake.

Even worse, the fascist has demanded the owners shut up about the case.

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. “This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

What a wonderful way to celebrate July 4th!


  • Cotour

    Unfortunately it is going to take someone ready willing and able to take this issue as far as they are able, all the way up to the Supreme Court even willing to go to jail to settle this issue. Paid for through a crowd funding effort or done pro bono. The individual citizens entire Constitutional suite of rights may rely on the baking and selling of a wedding cake, who would have figured? And the schizophrenic nature of this Supreme Court and its Chief Justice does not bode well for the individual.

    The individual and the Constitution, the interest of the State and the interest of the Federal Government. How can government counter balance the interest of an individual and their right to be treated “equally” in commerce and an individual doing business with the public and them being forced to participate in an activity that is abhorrent to them and the tenets of their religion?

    The government will argue that in choosing to do business with the public an individual has surrendered some of their religious freedoms and free speech, the public’s right to be treated “equally” trumps a primary claim to freedom of religion or speech.

    And the individual will argue that their religious freedoms, even though they are doing business with the public, and free speech is primary and supersedes the public’s interests when forcing them to essentially go over a reasonable line and participate in an activity that is against their primary freedoms.

    IMO in this case the labor judge, and I do not see how a labor judge has the authority to render such a penalty, has bent way way too far in the direction of the plaintiff with a $135,000.00 fine. I suppose that when you read about the horrible and disfiguring emotional damage that was caused by this slight it can be justified (high IQ sarcasm alert). Way, way over board. I will assume the judge does not consider him or herself a conservative in any way shape or form and is just not required to be reasonable. More of a well positioned community organizer?

  • D.K. Williams

    Time to move, although given time this oppression may happen everywhere.

  • Cotour

    Your own logic indicates that we should stay. Reagan, like him or not was right, there is no place else to go.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “And the schizophrenic nature of this Supreme Court and its Chief Justice does not bode well for the individual.”

    This schizophrenic behavior makes it difficult for We the Individuals, or for our businesses, to be secure in the way we live our lives and do business. If the law is applied unevenly between two similar transactions or interactions then how do we know how the law will apply the next time? How can we be law abiding citizens when the law shifts at the government’s whim (or vindictiveness)?

    When the punishments no longer fit the supposed crimes or are imposed arbitrarily, then we have a serious problem. We do what is legal today, it is declared illegal retroactively, and an excessive punishment is imposed for performing the acts that were legal when they were performed.

    The whole idea behind the Constitution is to ensure that the basics remain stable so that we know how to behave and conduct business. When the Constitution is ignored, behavior and business practices may be willy nilly deemed inappropriate or illegal, depending upon the whim or vindictiveness of the official judging that behavior.

    This is the America that we live in today.

    D.K. wrote: “Time to move, although given time this oppression may happen everywhere.”

    This type of oppression *is* everywhere. That is why the Founding Fathers set up the Union in the way that they did, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. The key word being “Liberty.” This is a concept that was lacking in the rest of the world. The lack of religious liberty was why the Pilgrims came and made a major contribution to the founding of this nation. The way this Union is being run now, the intention of this nation — as stated in the US Constitution’s Preamble — is being rended from us.

    If the government or the president is allowed to punish his enemies and reward his friends, then it becomes difficult to retain our liberty when only the president’s friends are allowed any form of liberty. Under that form of government, “liberty” becomes defined as doing as the president wishes, and what is the difference between that and an absolute monarchy or autocracy? That the president did not apologize for that statement or that no one corrected his attitude explains much about why this nation has been turning more and more tyrannical this past half decade.

    That no one is correcting the courts when they bypass the Constitution, the laws, and the established precedences explains why the courts have been turning more and more tyrannical, too.

    From the Article: “the claim from the one couple contained a ridiculously long list of damages from this one refusal to do business with the couple, none of them substantiated by any medical or expert testimony.”

    It is more than likely that the bakery owners felt the same long list of “damages” to themselves just by being served (ironically, this is the legal term, and I did not intend a pun — I only noticed it upon proofreading this comment), but there are certainly additional “damages” that they felt due to the excessive fine, undeserved loss of reputation, and loss of their constitutional rights as imposed by the evil, un-American, dictatorial court. So who do *they* go to for restitution? The Supreme Court is pretty fickle, these days, and they do not do well at reading or abiding by the US Constitution (it is hard to say if many of them even know it exists). They do not do well at acknowledging millennia-old definitions and laws, much less those that are only a few centuries old.

    Robert noted that We the People are becoming more and more hostile toward the federal government:

    We may not trust the federal government and may wish for stronger states, but some of the states, such as Oregon, are not that much better.

  • Cotour

    I realized something today, the Chief Justice gave as one of the reasons for his Obamacare position was because Obamacare was meant to fix and not destroy the healthcare system. I would contend that the entire thing is plainly and specifically designed to destroy exactly what the Chief Justice says it is supposed to “fix”.

    1st. Who cares (other than him) about what intent the Chief Justice thinks or was told was the intent of Obamacare? He may have been told that its intent was to fix it but we can document that it is all based on lies, right from the top down. Its a lie!

    I think this may be the focal point of being able to somehow challenge or over turn that particular ruling? And further more the Chief Justice believes that his actions related to Obamacare are based in the concepts of the Constitution but he has a very big problem with the gay marriage ruling and the Constitution. Huh?

    I can certainly come up with more Constitutional reasons for gay marriage if I was so inclined than to further burden the American people with a healthcare law that is certainly not based in the Constitution and is definitely based in bald faced and documentable lies.

    This Chief Justice is peeing in everyone’s face while telling them that its only a little rain. IMO of course.

  • Maurice

    Targeted Outrage. please post an address for me to send my used teabags to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *