Comments

  1. Dastius Krazitauc says

    I swear, I really don’t get it. It is simply creating and selling a product. That’s the extent of participating in this same sex wedding. Day in and day out, this baker bakes cakes and sells them, but now, *baking a cake and selling it* will go against the baker’s principles. What nonsense.

  2. Gigi says

    “I believe I have the liberty to live by my principles.”

    No. You don’t. You broke the law.

    Leviticus 20:9-10 suggests that children who curse their parents and adulterers should be stoned to death. That’s against the law too.

  3. Ted says

    “I believe I have the liberty to live by my principles.” Very true, but that has nothing to do with baking a wedding cake.

    p.s. I am going to start an Atheist bakery and deny cakes and pastries to religious people so that I can live my life by my principles.

  4. THurts says

    If you want to live your principles, then close down your business, give away all of your possessions, and begin to live amongst those that have the least of these. This is what Jesus did, so if you are a true follower of Christ and not doing this, SHUT UP and sell the damn cake!!!

  5. Nemo says

    As a gay man I am sad to see this but I say just make sure everyone knows & give your money to people who want it. As sad and narrow minded as it may be.

    My partner is a baker & he has turned down cakes he thought were in poor taste or rude (not just sexual cakes either). He was told by another baker of someone who wanted to celebrate the death of Martin Luther King Jr and not in a positive way with a cake. That baker turned it down. My partner has also turned down religious cakes from groups for reasons of ideology. I would hate to think he could be forced to make a cake of one of those horrible things.

    Housing, job, & healthcare are universal, for the rest go where you and your money are welcome is all I say. Would rather give my money to people that like me & I know it than unwittingly give it to people who will use it to fight my rights.

  6. Sam C says

    “Another Oregon Baker Denies Baking Wedding Cake for Gay Couple” means that they may or may not have done so. If they did, they will not admit it. Your title should read: “Another Oregon Baker Denies Request to Bake Wedding Cake for Gay Couple”

  7. Acronym Jim says

    It’s not surprising how close Mt. Hood Parkdale is to the homophobic hot spot in Oregon on the hate map.

    Also, now it’s not so surprising that “Dyke” was the most used slur there.

  8. Sam C says

    “Another Oregon Baker Denies Baking Wedding Cake for Gay Couple” means that they may or may not have done so. If they did, they will not admit it. Your title should read: “Another Oregon Baker Denies Request to Bake Wedding Cake for Gay Couple”

  9. says

    I don’t get why anti-gay business owners think they should only do business with those whose religion comports with their own. It’s like the Catholic businesses who think their employees should follow THEIR rules on birth control.

    On the other hand, I can guarantee that they don’t issue questionnaires to each customer, to be sure they’re not an adulterer or a fornicator. These nuts have a peculiar notion of “religious freedom.”

  10. Steve says

    @Nemo
    You just don’t get it. Businesses don’t have to take all customers, but they can’t refuse them based on the membership in a protected class.

    People should not be forced to beg a dozen businesses to serve them before they find one that will. Never mind that in rural areas, there maybe only one or two such businesses around and if they refuse, they can shut you out of certain services.

  11. says

    @Nemo: Refusing to bake a certain kind of cake (one that you consider obscene, for example) is not the same as refusing to serve a customer altogether because they belong to a group you don’t like. In the former case, presumably the baker wouldn’t make an obscene cake for any customer, regardless of that customer’s sexual orientation, religious beliefs, race or ethnicity. In the latter case, the baker is in essence hanging out a No Gays/Blacks/Jews/Christians etc. shingle and saying I will serve everyone but you: no matter what cake you might request, it is unacceptable to me.

    The latter is in clear violation of Washington’s non-discrimination laws, and if a bakery owner doesn’t agree with the state’s non-discrimination laws, they’re free to work to change the law, take the consequences of violating the law, or to step out of the public accommodations business. There is no reason why people with so-called religious beliefs or principles should be given a special exemption.

  12. says

    and yet…..for all their “this is my religion” arguments, they will not be able to point to a single passage in scripture that can back up their claims, nor could defend their position.

    this is one of those things that a bigoted church leader tells his/her flock, and the idiots go home and swallow it, unthinking. but there aint no scriptural defense for “you can’t back a cake for them because it makes you complicit and then you’re just as bad and you’re going to hell”

    it simply isn’t there.

    for make a leap – this is almost akin to the Islamist Burqa/niqab: it aint in the Q’uran, it’s a cultural dictation by men.

    so, Christians, it aint in your bibles – it’s a cultural dictation by your slavemaster pastors/priests/reverends, etc.

  13. EchtKultig says

    “I believe I have the liberty to live by my principles.”

    Yes, exactly. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex!

  14. mkandefer says

    “My partner is a baker & he has turned down cakes he thought were in poor taste or rude (not just sexual cakes either). He was told by another baker of someone who wanted to celebrate the death of Martin Luther King Jr and not in a positive way with a cake. That baker turned it down. My partner has also turned down religious cakes from groups for reasons of ideology.”

    The difference here is that your partner is refusing to produce certain products, not refusing to serve certain clients. The law does not say that bakers must make any cake imagined by their clients, it only says they cannot refuse their normal services to clients based on certain characteristics. If your bakery doesn’t make religious cakes, that’s fine. If your bakery refuses to serve Muslims, that is not.

  15. Nemo says

    I get the concept, and I know the law. I am allowed to disagree with the law. I understand being denied services for who we are, and how difficult it can be find places in rural areas- I grew up in a VERY rural area and know the discrimination I face/ faced there.

    All that said, I find the idea of forcing money down someone’s throat that is just going to use it to try to get more Michelle Bachman’s elected & in power just as icky as denying people.

    My point about the decoration of the cakes is the statements about “its just a cake, just bake it”. I was not equating the refusal of the people, but pointing out hte absurdity of “its just a cake”. The same can, and will be said about many things, but when an artist works they have to enjoy/believe in/ or at least be ok with working on the product/creation to some degree to get it to come out decent.

  16. Steve says

    It’s your position that is absurd. You are treating this is a theoretical issue and think about what would be ideal or nice. But real life doesn’t work that way.

  17. Peter says

    Dear Fleur Cakes, Your Beliefs Are Not Your Rights. By your standards, Southern lunch counter owners in the Civil Rights era were entitled to deny service to black customers because they believed blacks were an inferior race.

  18. David Hearne says

    Peter, Lunch counters (and it was not only in the South) DID have the right to refuse to serve blacks or anyone else they didn’t want to serve. Do you people have no concept of Freedom of Association and private property? Communism is the philosophy under which one works for the good of the state. We are not a community country.

  19. says

    you’re right. you’re a country divided by bigotry, prejudice and intolerance where intellectually-stunted plebes give excuses to be bigots rather than make the great mental leap to compassion and grace.
    kudos!

  20. EnterTheGecko says

    What gets me is this. Where are the bakers that are willing to make cakes for gay weddings? Why aren’t they speaking out? Shouldn’t there be some kind of effort to build up a directory of said services? People need to realize that gay marriage is still relatively new; and the system can’t just adjust overnight. This is an opportunity for these buisnesses to make their mark; or are they afraid of the bigots showing up to inflict physical and monetary damage to them and their buisness?

  21. EnterTheGecko says

    What gets me is this. Where are the bakers that are willing to make cakes for gay weddings? Why aren’t they speaking out? Shouldn’t there be some kind of effort to build up a directory of said services? People need to realize that gay marriage is still relatively new; and the system can’t just adjust overnight. This is an opportunity for these buisnesses to make their mark; or are they afraid of the bigots showing up to inflict physical and monetary damage to them and their buisness?

  22. says

    David Hearne writes “Peter, Lunch counters (and it was not only in the South) DID have the right to refuse to serve blacks or anyone else they didn’t want to serve. Do you people have no concept of Freedom of Association and private property?”

    Um…. no. It was legal in the Jim Crow South, but it would certainly not be legal today. We have public accommodation laws. This is quite different from freedom of association, which does not apply to a restaurant, a hotel, or a bakery.

    And nothing to do with private property.

    And nothing to do with communism.

    How much ignorance can one troll display in a short post?

  23. Steve says

    Freedom of association…it does not mean what you think it means.

    Private property…it also does not mean what you think it means.

    But that’s typical of teabaggers. They constantly use doublespeak to give words new meanings.

  24. Petrichor says

    I believe the proprietor has every right to work according to her personal principles. But planning a wedding is really complicated and time consuming so in order not to waste anyone’s time should we suggest she put a sign on the door saying something like “Hetero Only – we do not serve LGBTQ”. That would make it clear to everyone so they don’t offend her or waste their own energy.

  25. David Hearne says

    Petrichor – I agree. The law should respect everyone’s right to freedom of association, everyone’s right to work only for people he chooses, and everyone’s right to open his property only to those he chooses. Howbeit I have no problem with a requirement that any discriminatory policy must be posted on the door or front window of a store.

  26. David Hearne says

    KevinVT- You saying it does not make it so. We are talking about the private property of the business owner. We are talking about his right to work for those he chooses. We are talking about his right to associate only with those he chooses. You merely want to trample those rights and definitions because you think it serves your communist philosophy.

  27. Suzanne says

    Little Kiwi, who are you to attack these women based on their appearance? You are a horrible person. Sexism and misogyny are obvious in almost every one of your comments. You should worry less about the size of these lovely women and more about growing hair on that balding head of yours.

  28. Mary says

    Suzanne, everyone knows that there is someone on this site who posts under Kiwi’s name to make him look bad. You can always tell its the imposter when “Kiwi” says homophobic things. The real Little Kiwi would have a hard time criticizing two lesbians for anything – he’s fiercely protective of everyone in the LGBT community except closeted people and gay Republicans. No way he’d side with the baker here.

  29. says

    They have taken down their Facebook page as it received many many comments. They tried to delete many of the comments but couldn’t keep up. I am sure they will claim to be the victims in all this.

  30. Mary says

    Yes, Mark, that is exactly what will happen. Now a Christian baker gets sympathy because he had to take down his Facebook page due to being “hounded” by gay commenters. Episodes like this only breed hostility. Let’s not forget that these bakers, even if they are genuine homophobes (as opposed to simply SSM opponents) have family and friends who care about them and will very likely share in the hostility.

    People always ask “How will gay marriage effect you personally?” Now they have their answer. There will be some people who will have to give up their business
    due to situations like this.

    Is the PR cost worth it? I’m judging the situation strictly in terms of the pragmatic results for the gay community and not due to any concern for the feelings of the bakery owners themselves.

  31. JONES says

    Someone must have hijacked Kiwi’s account because the post link above does go to his blog. What’s up, Kiwi?

    Knew this ‘liberty to live by my principles’ meme was coming. Expect more along this lines of thinking. The martyrs get a lot of publicity and zealots will flock to support them.

    The easiest refute to this argument is that her ‘principles’ are based on discrimination. Not allowed in civil businesses by human rights ordinances where she lives.

    To those that say ‘what difference does it make, just go somewhere else’ … the laws on discrimination have to be brought to bear everywhere infractions occur. There can be no wavering. When you agree to accommodate one mode of discrimination you open the floodgates.

  32. David Hearne says

    Kiwi doesn’t even have a job much less a business. Oh poor Kiwi, sucking at the tit of the state because he’s bipolar. And yet he manages to stay remarkably consistent, albeit stupid, here.

  33. Mary says

    I can’t believe it, but this is the second time today I’m speaking in defense of Kiwi (who hates my guts and would of course never return the favor), but here goes. Kiwi has said that he’s an actor and writer. I take him at his word. It’s hard to make a living at either of those professions, but it’s possible that he does. His Dad was a very sucessful in Canada so he may have a trust fund that and use the acting/writing money to supplement his inheritance. Either way I don’t think he gets any state aid. He probably is not as crazy as his posts here seem to indicate. It’s very easy to tell people to “**ck off” and “grow a pair” over the internet, even if your real name is known. I doubt he treats people in person this way. Too risky.

    However, I do think he needs some kind of help for his anger problem.

  34. Mikey DallasM says

    I own a gift and home accessories store and am atheist. I also make a TON of money selling products to the believers in the magic sky daddy. Honestly, it makes me feel a bit better about how they treat us outside of my shop.

  35. says

    I only hope that those here who are unable to comprehend the very simple concept of non-discrimination laws don’t own a business in a place with such laws (which existed well before marriage equality and are not related to it) because you’re basically begging for a lawsuit due to your own stupidity. It may be 1950 in your head, but it isn’t in the real world.

  36. David Hearne says

    Ernie – So you are saying that when Constitutional protections stand in the way of your idea of “fairness” then the Constitution and the people who stand by it are stuck in the 1950’s. It’s nice to know that you have such low regard for my country and its constitution.

    How do you figure that it’s “fair” to force a person to work for someone else? You won’t even force people on welfare or in prison to pick tomatoes.

  37. says

    @David: If you believe non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, take it to the court, and when you win, shop owners will be able to hang out the No Gays/Blacks/Christians/Trolls etc. shingles again. But they’re not unconstitutional just cause you want them to be. They’re accepted law in my state, and if you’re in violation, you can whine about getting busted, but you’re still busted.

  38. says

    where does it begin and where does it end? are they fine giving cakes to non-christian, or non-religious weddings? how about a bar/bat mitzvah?

    is it just gay WEDDINGS they get icked out by, or would they deny baking a cake for, oh let’s say…um… a gay person’s birthday?

    i don’t get their angle. there’s certainly no biblical base for it, that’s for damned sure.

    “thou shalt not bake a cake for two people who don’t have the same religious beliefs as you”

    that aint there.

    but hey, we have religious leaders telling their flocks that casting a vote for *cough* a Democrat is going to taint there souls, in God’s eyes, or some nonsense like that.

    but really, what’s this person’s issue? “Oh i just don’t like what you are”, well good for you.

    and the folks defending them and their “right” to be a discriminatory bigot are likely the same Professional Doormats who live each day begging for pithy tolerance. and never getting any. and not having the sense to realize why.

    here’s hoping the more than plentiful Good Samaritans of Oregona step in and give them the cake of their dreams.

  39. MateoM says

    Gotta love how David Hearne (and UFFDA, though why separate them because they’re actually the same person) can only attack Little Kiwi. It’s the only card he has to play. As a troll, he lacks the necessary cognitive power or facts needed to actually participate in the discussion. Oh well. At least we can can have some fun calling him out for being a loser troll.

  40. says

    Dear David:

    Here’s the definition of “Public accommodations” from the ADA. Oregon has a law that covers discrimination based on sexual orientation, which would have the same definition of where it applies:

    (7) Public accommodation

    The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce

    (A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;

    (B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;

    (C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition entertainment;

    (D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;

    (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;

    (F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;

    (G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;

    (H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;

    (I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;

    (J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;

    (K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and

    (L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

    NOTE: PRIVATE ENTITIES ARE COVERED

  41. says

    The Oregon Equality Act forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
    identity or expression in several critical areas
    ►Employment in all state, municipal and private workplaces
    ► Public accommodations, meaning places open to the public such as businesses that sell goods or services, recreational facilities and providers of medical services

  42. willis says

    the one question I want to ask this baker is “do you say no to Christians who are getting married for the second, third, fourth, time?” all people can divorce and remarry as many times as they choose yet the bible is very clear on this subject, but hypocrisy reigns true.

  43. says

    it also CLEARLY says in the bible that if a woman gets married and is not a virgin she shall be executed.

    I wonder if Sarah Palin accepts this, and agrees that Bristol should not be allowed to marry….

  44. andrew says

    Would any LGBT person actually eat a wedding cake baked by bigots? I have heard many nasty stories about what food service people do to the food of people they don’t like. Shop around and find gay or gay friendly folks to bake your wedding cake.

  45. David Hearne says

    KevinVT – Sweetie, darling, I am aware of the law. I disagree with it and believe it to be unconstitutional. Many states have had laws on the books which are unconstitutional. Surely you are aware of the laws which were negated when the court found for Lawrence in Lawrence v Texas. Well many of those laws are still on the books, even though they are without force. The Constitution is not without force, ever.

    Read what Ron Paul has to say on the subject.

    http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

    This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

  46. says

    Ah, deluded @David, you and old kook Ron Paul thinking a law is unconstitutional does not make it so. There is no comparison to Lawrence v. Texas, because that was found unconstitutional (and has nothing to do with anything here). Non-discrimination laws have not been negated. Nor have they been found unconstitutional. They’re legal and enforceable. Just ask some inn owners in my state who were slapped with a big ole fine for exercising their private bigotry in public accommodations.

  47. Sooz says

    The bigot baker/owner of Fleur Cakes, Pamela Regentin, is a personal fan [client?] of the vile homophobic legal group “The Alliance Defending Freedom.”(the same group who gave accolades to their jailed staffer, Lisa Biron, the incestuous lawyer who also pimped her 14-year old daughter) The second this bakery hit the headlines, it was obvious they were choreographing rhe controversy….flippant response and disrespect for the anti-discrimination laws in Oregon made that very clear.

    She’s a loud proud graduate of a school called “Christ the Master”, Wixom, Michigan. This woman has been indoctrinated into what she is now long, long ago. Sadly, she’s been allowed to procreate…repeatedly.

  48. says

    David: When you and the loony Pauls manage to pack the Supreme Court with people who want to overturn anti-discrimination laws, then get back to me.

    Meanwhile as far as I know ALL states have them, though they cover different categories of people. They have yet to be found unconstitutional.

    Please hold your breath!

  49. RexT says

    No doubt, Ms Regentin of Fleur Cakes had made this decision before Katie contacted her, and when it was clear she at last had her ‘moment’ to take a ‘stand for her liberty’ – Damn It! This behavior is being encouraged and the ‘national attention’ is exactly what the intended goal is, still believing … well, believing seems to have much to do with their inherent desire to negatively impact and harm families which do not fit their choice of believing. NOM – will have her in a video soon, Brian Brown will be her Knight as she lives through whatever persecution she will ABSOLUTELY experience and suffer through. Her cross has gone up with her on it.

  50. Dan says

    So many of you automatically equate this event with religious dogma, but she said she wants to live by her principles, and that she feels that she should have the liberty to do that. Well, by law, she lacks that liberty, but you should stop assuming she’s hateful, or that she discriminates aqainst Jews or black people, and you should stop claimimg that you know why she’s doing this. You do not know why people think the way that they do, and thoughts that differ from yours do not make them idiotic or nonsensical. And for those of you who would say to Ms. Regentin, “… it’s only a CAKE…”, let me just mention to Ms. Hanson and Ms. Pugh, “It’s only a cake, ladies, if you can’t have it, get over it”.

  51. Igor says

    Christians have their constitutional rights to defend their Faith in Jesus. Yes, Aaron and Melissa were right, they have rights to say NO, when it comes to human sin that defiles their Faith.

Leave A Reply