Discrimination | News | Oregon

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

Sweetckaes

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...

Sweetcakesprotest

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Plain and simple is it illegal in Oregon to discriminate against anyone on basis of any kind then the shop is in the wrong.

    Posted by: Walter | Feb 11, 2013 2:42:38 PM


  2. you mean besides the fact that the KKK are a designated hate group and gay couples aren't, you complete idiot?

    how's the anonymous trolling going? way to make daddy proud!

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 2:42:42 PM


  3. AG,
    As long as they are peaceful, and not causing a disturbance there is nothing you can do. That’s the price one pays for having a business open to the public.

    Posted by: 1♥ | Feb 11, 2013 2:44:29 PM


  4. So may we assume these "Christian" bakers investigate everyone to whom they supply a cake? Do they check to see whether they engaged in pre-marital sex? What about if the upcoming "holy union" started as an adulterous affair for one or both? Would they deny the couple their services?

    Of course not. Because they're hypocrites, not "Christians."

    Posted by: Caliban | Feb 11, 2013 2:48:01 PM


  5. P.S.
    You said," "Running a business is a privilege. Not a right."

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

    You do not have the right to open a liquor store in a "dry county" that does not allow alcohol. Those are conservative right wing counties BTW.

    Posted by: 1♥ | Feb 11, 2013 2:49:15 PM


  6. Ignoring these right-wing gay (or faking as gay) trolls, the CFA affect has led to an increase in sales but a steep decrease in viability of their brand----the companies' brand rating has declined. Let the bigots support one another. At the end of the day, these people are on the wrong side of today and the wrong side of history.

    The lesbian couple in the middle of the discrimination will have their cake baked by Duff Goldman. I don't think they're going to be shedding tears over a bigot at their marriage ceremony. The story has become national and yet another example of the discrimination we face as who we are. Every one of these attempts to segregate and discriminate from these conservative fundamentalist haters are doing nothing but exposing them as the hateful wenches they are and driving people away from such divisive, intolerant ways of thinking.

    Oregon has discriminatory policies in place and you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the state of Oregon. A bakery isn't a church, and Aaron Klein didn't do his job. Hope he has fun paying punitive damages!

    Posted by: Francis | Feb 11, 2013 2:55:14 PM


  7. Hey, there's big bucks to be made publicizing your bigotry and passing yourself off as a victim of those bullying gays. Expect this to become a national trend. They outnumber us so they will always win these battles, which we need to choose much more wisely if we are going to fight and win over the bigots.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Feb 11, 2013 3:11:22 PM


  8. wow, these new concern trolls really seem to have all the answers, like they are reading from the same set of talking points. the points are highly incomplete & the logic is faulty, but they sure sound truthy.

    Posted by: antb | Feb 11, 2013 3:12:55 PM


  9. PFFT. They can SAY they are "booming", but I'll believe that if in 6 months they are still around. You might have received a temporary bump from your fellow bigots, but longterm the wedding planners and other businesses that you rely on will think twice about sending anymore business your way.

    Posted by: BETTY | Feb 11, 2013 3:16:47 PM


  10. Aren't they sinning by bragging and boasting about how well they are doing?

    Posted by: BETTY | Feb 11, 2013 3:21:49 PM


  11. Yeah, but the inflation of business is just as temporary as the protest. No one stands in line outside a Chick-fullof-hate anymore. How many times does a normal family need to run to a bakery for a cake?

    Posted by: mvecera | Feb 11, 2013 3:38:47 PM


  12. @AG:

    Given that gays have been fired from their jobs, denied housing, acces to their own children, beaten, and murdered, aside from the discrimination inherent in the refusal of a baker to make a lesbian couple a wedding cake, yes, I think a comparison is apt. You're lying if you haven't witnessed verbal or physical abuse of gays. It's perfectly acceptable in some circles.

    Your arbitrary classification of who is acceptable to be served in a public establishment doesn't help your argument.

    Posted by: Huh? | Feb 11, 2013 3:39:13 PM


  13. AG - Yeah those progs are just awful evil nazis out to strip you of your rights and make you a second class citizen.

    You sound like such a pathetic fool - without progressives having paved the way for legal rights for gay people you'd be cowering in a closet hating yourself and others for merely existing.

    Yeah, "Progs and libs" are so awful to you, we weep for you you poor downtrodden moron.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Feb 11, 2013 3:44:05 PM


  14. Huh - AG is simply one of the aliases of this site's designated anonymous cowardly trolls.

    either a miserable homosexual closet-case and racist, a miserable heterosexual NOM-head with nothing better to do, or one of those GayPatriot.net types who needs to spout right-wing talking points or else his parents will beat him again.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 3:45:25 PM


  15. I hope that a small part of each of these people knows that in 20 years, their children will be ashamed of their behavior.

    Posted by: jd | Feb 11, 2013 3:50:15 PM


  16. "So just to be clear, you do support any bakery’s right to NOT make a Jewish wedding cake or a cake. Correct."

    Actually, yes. I don't think the government has a compelling reason to force people to endorse, participate, or further marriages that violate their religious beliefs. Proving services to a couple is not morally neutral, it is an inherently moral act. If you don't think so, it's because you don't share the religious beliefs of those who don't want to be involved in furthering something they sincerely think is a sin. We should be sensitive enough to not want to force people to violate their sacred beliefs, even if we don't share those beliefs. I think the 1st Amendment protects people from being forced by the state to engage in actions that contravene their religious beliefs. It is the most fundamental of rights and can only be violated when the government has the most compelling government interests. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and the presumption should be that any encroachment on a religious liberty is unconstitutional, not constitutional. And by the way, the Constitution protects the exercise and practice of religious beliefs, not just mere passive belief. That is called Free Exercise.

    Posted by: Jake | Feb 11, 2013 3:53:16 PM


  17. JD - that would be the BEST case scenario! worst case? they drive their own kids to suicide.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 3:53:23 PM


  18. photoshopped? really?

    Posted by: Dan | Feb 11, 2013 4:10:34 PM


  19. @Jake:

    Unlike AG, you actually have a consistent argument against the Oregon anti-disrimination law (to say nothing of the Civil Rights Act). It's not just the first amendment, really, either, since there are restrictions on every amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's more about public vs. private. The debate over where private property meets the common good is not an easy one, and I doubt it will be resolved any time soon.

    I happen to believe racial integration would never have been implemented without government interference, and neither would women in the workplace, among other situations we now take for granted. I understand the libertarian point of view, but I just disagree with it. It's one of those philosophies that sounds good in theory but doesn't work in practice. For example, if you could ask black people who staged sit-ins in segregated diners during the Civil Rights era about their experiences, they wouldn't say that equality under the law didn't just happen. Whites didn't just turn around and say, "Oh, I guess I was being immoral. Sorry 'bout that. Here's the root beer float you ordered!" It was violent. The government had to do someting in order to establish civil equality.

    Posted by: Huh? | Feb 11, 2013 5:05:39 PM


  20. exactly - Huh? Exactly. exactly. exactly.

    fun fact - in 2013 we still have angry white folks bitter about how the government forced them to integrate.

    many of them have been commenting here all day.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Feb 11, 2013 5:11:52 PM


  21. If you don't want to serve all of the public, including the KKK, don't open a business. As long as your customers are law abiding, serve them. No one cares what your religious beliefs are when you are serving heated sugar and flour. Get over yourselves.

    Posted by: Mawm | Feb 11, 2013 5:15:26 PM


  22. Human rights>Feelings.

    You're welcome, Jake.

    Posted by: Francis | Feb 11, 2013 5:26:32 PM


  23. as a place of public accomodation, you can't discriminate to the public based on religion.

    no exeptions

    Posted by: gomez | Feb 11, 2013 5:34:21 PM


  24. @Jake,
    Based on your comment you must support the religous right to own slaves or men owning women.

    As far as I'm concern, bigotry masked in religion is still bigotry

    Posted by: ELI | Feb 11, 2013 6:37:13 PM


  25. "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."

    @Jake: ANYTHING anyone does can potentially contravene religious beliefs, which are often completely arbitrary and illogical in their reasoning. A banker may not want to lend money for an inter-racial couple for their mortgage. A cleaner may not want to clean a suit for a Bar Mitzvah. A restaurant owner may not want to serve a black family because of the formerly-common interpretations of rhe Tower of Babel and the Curse of Ham.
    There is nothing more inherently "neutral" about any other job compared to a baker.

    Posted by: GregV | Feb 11, 2013 7:20:17 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


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