Anti-Gay Baker, Cries At Values Voter Summit Over Business Closing

[aGameOfThrones]

Anti-gay baker Melissa Klein openly cried at the Values Voter Summit last week over the forced closing of her business due to backlash stemming from her refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

In January 2013, Sweet Cakes By Melissa refused service to a lesbian couple looking for a wedding cake. The subsequent fallout included national media attention and a state investigation for anti-gay discrimination -- perpetuated by the Kleins' continued actions, such as baking cakes for an "ex-gay" group.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state, a reality that made Klein break into tears while discussing her passion for the process of baking wedding cakes during the Values Voter Summit.


Following outrage over the business's anti-gay actions, Sweet Cakes By Melissa eventually had to shut down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5901036.html

[fr33]

So basically she has been deemed a slave of the state to dance when they say dance. Ridiculous.

[tod evans]

backlash stemming from her refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state,

So the supposed "backlash" isn't from customers the way I read it...........

[Antischism]

Government shouldn't discriminate. If everyone is protected from private businesses discriminating except for a specific class of people, that is wrong. You can either allow discrimination against everyone or no one. If you allow discrimination only against specific groups of people, that's de facto government discrimination.

On a personal level, I'm sure she had no problem serving gluttons, liars, thieves, the greedy, cheats, abusers, idol worshipers, adulterers or prostitutes. Granted, people don't wear badges that proclaim they're any of the above, but due to the fact that it's pretty difficult to hide that you're ordering a cake for a wedding between two people of the same sex, it's probably easier for them to make that sort of moral judgment. However, human nature dictates that most people you'll come across will most likely be a sinner if you go by biblical law. Is homosexuality just held to such a negative degree by some Christians that it eclipses all other possible sins? If you're going to refuse homosexuals because you don't want to serve sinners, how do you live with yourself knowing you could be baking a cake for a rapist? A child abuser? Or even an atheist?!

People can debate that government shouldn't tell people how to run their business, and that's fine. What's not okay is saying government should discriminate against certain groups. A bakery run by homosexuals who refuse to serve Christians or heterosexuals because of their religious beliefs/heterosexuality would be held to the same laws. As such, while I can empathize with the woman (losing your business and getting such a hefty fine is life-ruining), she was well aware of the law and I cannot, in good conscience, advocate for government discriminating against specific groups. There are better things I can do with my time than lament a bigot.

What I find interesting is a lot of these people want government to protect them from discrimination based on religion, so they're obviously not advocating for the rights of private business owners to discriminate against anyone for any reason. They're part of the problem. They want to use government as a means to discriminate against specific people. I will never accept that. Once again, either you can discriminate against any group of people, or no one at all.

[Beorn]

On a personal level, I'm sure she had no problem serving gluttons, liars, thieves, the greedy, cheats, abusers, idol worshipers, adulterers or prostitutes.

She also probably didn't have a problem serving homosexuals. But the idol worshipers weren't asking for a "hail Baal" cake and the adulterers weren't asking for a swinger party cake. Here the homosexuals were asking for a cake that specifically supported something she was politically and religiously against. You might still consider her a bigot, but she was not discriminating based on class.

Is homosexuality just held to such a negative degree by some Christians that it eclipses all other possible sins? If you're going to refuse homosexuals because you don't want to serve sinners, how do you live with yourself knowing you could be baking a cake for a rapist? A child abuser? Or even an atheist?!

See above argument. This is stupid. It's hard for me to imagine you can't see the difference between selling a generic product to all classes of people and selling a specific product customized to celebrate specific human behavior.

[MelissaWV]

Many businesses discriminate against smokers, drunks, barefoot people, shirtless people, loud/disruptive people, smelly people, those that "look homeless," children, and so on. Guess what? Excellent! Yeah there's a difference as indicated in the above post, but it should not matter. She should be able to decline any and all business she wants (before entering into any contract of course), with the knowledge that she might go out of business if she's too picky or offends the wrong people. That should be the way of it, not because she offended government.

[LibertyEagle]

As a business owner, she should be able to decide who she wants to serve. It's not government's or anyone else's business.

[Origanalist]

She also probably didn't have a problem serving homosexuals. But the idol worshipers weren't asking for a "hail Baal" cake and the adulterers weren't asking for a swinger party cake. Here the homosexuals were asking for a cake that specifically supported something she was politically and religiously against. You might still consider her a bigot, but she was not discriminating based on class.



See above argument. This is stupid. It's hard for me to imagine you can't see the difference between selling a generic product to all classes of people and selling a specific product customized to celebrate specific human behavior.

Believe it.

[osan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5901036.html

This is truly sad, I must say. While I do not share Klein's apparently principled position on the ***** wedding deal, I fully support her right as a free and sovereign Individual to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, including no reason whatsoever.

While I fully support one's personal choices, I do not support the actions of the ***** "community" that drove this poor woman out of business. This is the sort of thing that stands to precipitate wild backlash one day, if perchance the Rule of Law ever decides to take a vacation from this land. I am appalled at those ideas to which the greater body of the ***** population welds itself, most of which come right out of the progressive playbook. I am disgusted at ***** hypocrisy. For a group of people to adopt the progressive world-view, especially in the wake and face of all their whining about how abused and violated they are, is beneath contempt and reprehensible beyond mental grasp. If nothing else, they should be smart enough to recognize the practical potential for the grave harms they stand to face one day because people tend not to forget this kind of thing, which angers them precisely because of the injustice of such vicious and petty acts.

One would think that such people would be particularly cognizant and respectful of a differing point of view. But no. The militant ***** expects the world to kowtow to him in praise of the way of gay. I have to admit that this disgusts me endlessly and I will predict that if the day comes where the general social environment no longer affords the illusions of ready protection for the rights of the homosexual, that there will be consequences most bitter in a great plurality of mortal payback. If that day comes, I will find some small difficulties with dredging up an overflow of sympathy.

Once you have made your bed, I bid thee lie in it.

[Working Poor]

Civil rights...

[jkr]

shoulda "no quoted" it...

[Christian Liberty]

Government shouldn't discriminate. If everyone is protected from private businesses discriminating except for a specific class of people, that is wrong. You can either allow discrimination against everyone or no one. If you allow discrimination only against specific groups of people, that's de facto government discrimination.

On a personal level, I'm sure she had no problem serving gluttons, liars, thieves, the greedy, cheats, abusers, idol worshipers, adulterers or prostitutes. Granted, people don't wear badges that proclaim they're any of the above, but due to the fact that it's pretty difficult to hide that you're ordering a cake for a wedding between two people of the same sex, it's probably easier for them to make that sort of moral judgment. However, human nature dictates that most people you'll come across will most likely be a sinner if you go by biblical law. Is homosexuality just held to such a negative degree by some Christians that it eclipses all other possible sins? If you're going to refuse homosexuals because you don't want to serve sinners, how do you live with yourself knowing you could be baking a cake for a rapist? A child abuser? Or even an atheist?!

People can debate that government shouldn't tell people how to run their business, and that's fine. What's not okay is saying government should discriminate against certain groups. A bakery run by homosexuals who refuse to serve Christians or heterosexuals because of their religious beliefs/heterosexuality would be held to the same laws. As such, while I can empathize with the woman (losing your business and getting such a hefty fine is life-ruining), she was well aware of the law and I cannot, in good conscience, advocate for government discriminating against specific groups. There are better things I can do with my time than lament a bigot.

What I find interesting is a lot of these people want government to protect them from discrimination based on religion, so they're obviously not advocating for the rights of private business owners to discriminate against anyone for any reason. They're part of the problem. They want to use government as a means to discriminate against specific people. I will never accept that. Once again, either you can discriminate against any group of people, or no one at all.

Aggressive violence is wrong.

More aggressive violence is more wrong.

For government to prevent any discrimination is morally wrong. For them to prevent even more discrimination is even more wrong.

And that goes for Christians, atheists, gays, straights, or anyone else. Doesn't matter.

[pcosmar]

That's the same one that equates the "sanctity" of marriage with Dog Breeding.

Boo Hoo man,, Boo Hoo. I have no sympathy for,, nor interest to hear from this idiot.

[jonhowe]

She IS a bigot, but people have every right to be bigots at their private businesses. The government's response here is terrifying!

[Christian Liberty]

What's wrong with being a bigot?

[jonhowe]

What's wrong with being a bigot?

According to the bible, nothing, so you're all set.

[Beorn]

She IS a bigot, but people have every right to be bigots at their private businesses. The government's response here is terrifying!

I'm pretty sure it's the height of bigotry to get the state to bend someone to your will if they disagree with you.

It's really not terribly bigoted just to not engage in an activity with which you disagree.

[jonhowe]

I'm pretty sure it's the height of bigotry to get the state to bend someone to your will if they disagree with you.

Agreed. No one looks good here, but only the government is violating anyone's rights.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Christians need to become radicalized against the state. If these types of property rights and religious liberty infringements can help achieve that, that's a good thing. Hopefully this story doesn't die out. The people marginalizing the victim in this case have been taken in by politically correct bull$#@!.

[dannno]

I wish she would have gone out of business without government intervention.

[tod evans]

I wish she would have gone out of business without government intervention.

Pretty unlikely....

Government is necessary to push political correctness, it's not human nature.

[Dr.3D]

Seems to me, this is much like the forced handicapped parking. It should be the option of the store owner if they want to provide special parking for handicapped people. The state shouldn't be forcing store owners to do anything.

[EBounding]

She also probably didn't have a problem serving homosexuals. But the idol worshipers weren't asking for a "hail Baal" cake and the adulterers weren't asking for a swinger party cake. Here the homosexuals were asking for a cake that specifically supported something she was politically and religiously against. You might still consider her a bigot, but she was not discriminating based on class.

Great point. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some "satanists" try to pull that stunt.

[Brian4Liberty]

She also probably didn't have a problem serving homosexuals. But the idol worshipers weren't asking for a "hail Baal" cake and the adulterers weren't asking for a swinger party cake. Here the homosexuals were asking for a cake that specifically supported something she was politically and religiously against. You might still consider her a bigot, but she was not discriminating based on class.

See above argument. This is stupid. It's hard for me to imagine you can't see the difference between selling a generic product to all classes of people and selling a specific product customized to celebrate specific human behavior.

Good point. Part of what makes this a somewhat different case is that this is a custom job, with a custom product that an owner might find objectionable for any number of reasons. Of course the Marxists (in media and government) are in the business of deciding who is protected and who is to be demonized, so these decisions are no longer in the hands of the people doing the actual work.

Government shouldn't discriminate. If everyone is protected from private businesses discriminating except for a specific class of people, that is wrong. You can either allow discrimination against everyone or no one. If you allow discrimination only against specific groups of people, that's de facto government discrimination.

Yep.

On a personal level, I'm sure she had no problem serving gluttons, liars, thieves, the greedy, cheats, abusers, idol worshipers, adulterers or prostitutes. Granted, people don't wear badges that proclaim they're any of the above, but due to the fact that it's pretty difficult to hide that you're ordering a cake for a wedding between two people of the same sex, it's probably easier for them to make that sort of moral judgment.

In addition to ordering a custom product that the contractor or artist might not want to produce, this specific business usually involves delivery and set-up at an event. That is also problematic. There are probably quite a number of examples of combinations of cakes and events that a baker might not want to be involved in catering.

[Antischism]

She also probably didn't have a problem serving homosexuals. But the idol worshipers weren't asking for a "hail Baal" cake and the adulterers weren't asking for a swinger party cake. Here the homosexuals were asking for a cake that specifically supported something she was politically and religiously against. You might still consider her a bigot, but she was not discriminating based on class.



See above argument. This is stupid. It's hard for me to imagine you can't see the difference between selling a generic product to all classes of people and selling a specific product customized to celebrate specific human behavior.

But she was. She refused to bake them a cake based on their homosexuality. She was refusing to provide an advertised service to a couple because they're lesbians. You can't exactly customize a cake for a wedding in most cases without knowing if it's for a homosexual or heterosexual couple. That's the nature of it. Of course you can say she wouldn't turn them away if it was a generic cake, just as she wouldn't turn away any other potential 'sinner' since she would have no way of knowing unless they outright stated it. I understand what you're trying to say, but no matter how you look at it, she's still discriminating based on class, which is something that should have no middle ground. Government would ideally be out of it, but if that isn't the case, they can't pick and choose which classes of people businesses are allowed to discriminate against. She wants her religion to be protected but has no problem with government allowing discrimination against homosexuals. That's wrong.

Her business went under due to the negative backlash she experienced by allowing her religious views to dictate who she wanted to serve/not serve (and aligning with 'gay conversion therapists,' but that's another story). If we had a true free market system, that would also be the end result. This is what's great about the free market system; if you espouse bigoted views and discriminate, your business will most likely fail. As for the fine, I agree, that's unfortunate. They're willing to waive the fee if she decides to serve everyone regardless of class, however. She has also been running her business from home now, no?

What I want is consistency. I'm not going to side with someone who would use government for their own ends just to deny people they don't like. I have more in common with people who want government to protect all classes even if it means private business owners don't get to be bigots, than people who would use government to protect their own class and at the same time deny others.

It's funny, this catering business. I would never advise a Christian to get involved in baking wedding cakes if they know there's a chance they're going to get a request from a homosexual couple and can't in their own conscience, bake it for them. I'd also like to add that from my own personal interpretation and having studied religion vigorously growing up, I don't understand how it would conflict with biblical teachings. Of course, that is up to the individual to decide, but I just can't see how Jesus would be okay with discrimination, even against sinners.

[Beorn]

But she was. She refused to bake them a cake based on their homosexuality.
...
but I just can't see how Jesus would be okay with discrimination, even against sinners.

I read the first couple of sentences and then I skipped to the last sentence and I couldn't imagine that anything in between was worth reading let alone worth a response. Time is too precious.

[Spikender]

Of course Oregon sued her, these states leap onto anyone they can to try and excise more flesh on top of what they already take because they

They aren't satisfied with her property and income taxes on top of whatever fees they excise from her for business licenses and tickets, they now have an excuse to take thousands from her because she refused to serve two customers.

The State is the real villain, as always.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Of course Oregon sued her, these states leap onto anyone they can to try and excise more flesh on top of what they already take because they

They aren't satisfied with her property and income taxes on top of whatever fees they excise from her for business licenses and tickets, they now have an excuse to take thousands from her because she refused to serve two customers.

The State is the real villain, as always.

Beware the cult of "government"...

[Christian Liberty]

Christians need to become radicalized against the state. If these types of property rights and religious liberty infringements can help achieve that, that's a good thing. Hopefully this story doesn't die out. The people marginalizing the victim in this case have been taken in by politically correct bull$#@!.

This is such an awesome quote. So true. Thankfully, Ron Paul and later LRC posters helped me become radicalized against the State, as I always should have been.

[Antischism]

I read the first couple of sentences and then I skipped to the last sentence and I couldn't imagine that anything in between was worth reading let alone worth a response. Time is too precious.

Don't bother to engage in discussion next time, then.