Discrimination | News | Oregon

Activists Protest Bigoted 'Sweet Cakes' Bakery While Business Booms: VIDEO


Sweet Cakes, the Oregon bakery which refused to bake a cake after they found out it was for a lesbian's wedding, was the target of a protest on Saturday, KATU reports:

Dozens of people showed up outside Sweet Cakes by Melissa Saturday afternoon to voice their opposition to Aaron Klein’s decision not to make the cake. “That’s wrong. That’s a crime in Oregon,” said protester Rob Cochran. “I need to let people know if you’re going to do that as a business, there are going to be consequences.”

Meanwhile, the business is experiencing the Chick-fil-A effect — its bigoted Christian supporters are coming out in droves to support it.

Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement officers are looking into whether Klein broke the law by discriminating.

Watch video of the protest and interviews with Klein and customers, AFTER THE JUMP...


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. well, then like with chick-fil-a, and the "we dont' need no gun regulation!" crowd, i hope they indulge themselves into an early grave.


    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 1:35:28 PM

  2. they probably did this on purpose to get the publicity.

    Posted by: fsinsd | Feb 11, 2013 1:43:11 PM

  3. Agreed. This was probably a publicity stunt all along. The saw how well hate worked in selling chicken sandwiches.

    Posted by: Anders | Feb 11, 2013 1:46:57 PM

  4. You know maybe, just maybe, it's not their "bigoted Christian supporters" who are coming out in droves, but people who think that just as gays should be free to live their lives and have individual choice and dignity, so too should business owners be free to live their lives and have individual choice and dignity, including the individual choice and dignity of deciding how they will engage their freedom of association -- including who will and will not be their customers.

    Why are freedom, choice and dignity only a one-way street? Ought associational choices with which we disagree to be criminalized, or not? Do let's avoid this one-direction-only hypocrisy, though.

    Posted by: Oh, the hypocrisy | Feb 11, 2013 1:51:18 PM

  5. Good. The bigots will eat themselves in a diabetic coma and get out of the way so much quicker.

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Feb 11, 2013 1:52:00 PM

  6. These sorts of publicity "bumps" for businesses tend to be short-lived. Check back in 6 months or so and see what the real fall-out has been.

    It's possible it may be good. Based on the after-church crowd in my area those religious folks must put away a lot of pies!

    Long term I suspect they'll lose business though.

    Posted by: Caliban | Feb 11, 2013 1:52:58 PM

  7. Who would want a mouthful of hate baked by bigots anyhow? Screw them!

    Posted by: CKNJ | Feb 11, 2013 1:53:26 PM

  8. @ Oh, the hypocrisy
    What are you talking about? This is a site for totalitarian progs (who happen to be gay). Freedom and individual choice are alien concepts to the regulars here. Criminalizing those who disagree with them is exactly what they want.

    Posted by: AG | Feb 11, 2013 1:57:43 PM

  9. "Oh The Hypocrisy" should change his name to "I Like Being A Doormat"

    Guys, its' one of our resident trolls. I mean, come on.

    One more gay coward who can't put a face to his opinions, and those opinions are nothing more than a regurgitation of the bigotry and ignorance his parents fed him instead of love and intellectual discernment.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 2:02:31 PM

  10. Sorry, but the law should not make businesses actions that go against their religious beliefs. Making cakes for a wedding is to some an endorsement of a particular prospective marriage, and as such, can contravene certain religious beliefs. It is not like merely serving a gay individual at a bank, the cleaners, or a restaurant, which are morally neutral. If we want people to respect the right of same=sex couples to have marriages that contravene many peoples' religious beliefs, we much be tolerant of the right of religious people not to participate in any way in those marriages or weddings. People should be able to opt out of actions that implicitly or explicitly endorse same-sex or any other type of marriage. Religious liberty is paramount in our constitutional freedoms.

    Posted by: Jake | Feb 11, 2013 2:03:52 PM

  11. Right, because "protesting" means "criminalization". Ought Oh, The Hypocrisy and AG learn the difference between public expression and legal criminality? Perhaps they ought to understand that an action can be recognizably distasteful and yet not illegal? Methinks so.

    Posted by: luminum | Feb 11, 2013 2:04:42 PM

  12. the day any of you "i support their right to discriminate" cowards can put an actual face to your comments will be the day your pathetic and cowardly opinions will be taken seriously.

    and we all know it'll never come.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 2:07:41 PM

  13. Business owners simply don't have the right to refuse customers randomly. And public accommodation laws have been in place for decades. Running a business is a privilege. Not a right.

    Posted by: Steve | Feb 11, 2013 2:08:35 PM

  14. @Jake
    BS. A cake is a cake. It's not endorsing anything. Baking a cake is not "participating in a wedding". If you go down that route, anything can become an expression of religion and "freedom of religion" becomes nothing but an excuse to not follow the law. Which is exactly what the Christian Taliban want.

    The whole idea of a "Christian business" is absurd and a perversity that could only exist in the US.

    Posted by: Steve | Feb 11, 2013 2:11:00 PM

  15. Also "religious liberty" only means that you won't get thrown in jail or legally punished for professing certain beliefs. Which is what happened for centuries. And does not and has never meant freedom of action. You can believe, but you can't do what you want. The courts are very explicit in that distinction.

    Posted by: Steve | Feb 11, 2013 2:12:13 PM

  16. @ Oh, the Hypocrisy and AG:

    Just to be sure, you both are against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which addressed Jim Crow laws concerning separate facilties and businesses for whits and blacks?

    Posted by: Huh? | Feb 11, 2013 2:13:02 PM

  17. @Huh - AG/Hypocrisy were raised by gay-hating anti-Integrationists. So, yes. he/they're against it.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 2:17:16 PM

  18. "Running a business is a privilege. Not a right."

    In Barack Obama's America that's certainly true. One has to be his crony.

    Posted by: AG | Feb 11, 2013 2:21:52 PM

  19. As long as bigots can show enthusiastic support by enthusiastically eating, there will always be a "Chick-fil-A Effect."

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Feb 11, 2013 2:22:44 PM

  20. To Jake, AG, and Oh the hypocrisy,
    So you do support the KKK and other white supremacy groups, correct. All of those kinds of groups are based on their Christian religion and they have that biblical word of your god to prove their prejudice is justified.
    So just to be clear, you do support any bakery’s right to NOT make a Jewish wedding cake or a cake for mixed faiths and/or races. Correct.

    Posted by: 1♥ | Feb 11, 2013 2:25:32 PM

  21. Don't trivialize Jim Crow and segregation. Are you really saying that the treatment of Blacks in the US South sixty years ago was as bad as not getting a wedding cake?

    Posted by: AG | Feb 11, 2013 2:25:38 PM

  22. @1♥

    If you're a restaurant owner, what recourse do you have against the local chapter of the American Nazi party if it decides to hold its weekly meetings in you restaurant?

    Posted by: AG | Feb 11, 2013 2:32:16 PM

  23. again - why can't the defenders of these Bigots put a face to their claims? *yawn*

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 2:32:34 PM

  24. All those morons saying a business should be able to decide who they serve...REALLY!? If it was an interracial couple being refused service no one would think twice about how absurd this is. I'm sick of all those gays that feel that we are second class citizens and should be treated as such. If that's how you feel stay in your house, piss in jars, and wear Kleenex boxes on your feet because you have nothing to contribute to society.

    Posted by: Will | Feb 11, 2013 2:35:09 PM

  25. If this baker refuses to make a cake with three big KKK letters on it, do you think Oregon Attorney General should investigate him? If not, why not?

    Posted by: AG | Feb 11, 2013 2:40:23 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Adam Lambert Teases Cover of Rihanna's 'Stay': VIDEO« «