Freedom of Religion Under Fire- Bakery Forced to Close

 In Domestic, opinion, religion

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution 

freedom of religion

Aaron and Melissa Klein have been forced to close their bakery, and may have to declare bankruptcy over their refusal to bake a cake for a gay marriage. TPM Livewire photo


Freedom of Religion destroyed

In January, an Oregon Judge ruled against the religious freedoms of the owners of “Sweet Cakes,” an Oregon bakery, in violation of their religious civil rights, forcing them to provide their services for a same sex couples ceremonial union.

Citing discrimination,  Judge Alan McCullough ruled that the owners of the bakery, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had discriminated against a gay couple in 2013 by refusing to provide a wedding cake for their ceremony.

The judge disregarded the fact that the Kleins were Christians and that providing a cake to a same sex union ceremony violated their religious convictions.  – a freedom guaranteed to all American citizens and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

A Plea to the Court for Mercy

During the trial, Aaron Klein, stated that he believed providing a cake for a same sex wedding ceremony was a violation of his conscience and religious freedom.

Additionally, their attorney, Anna Harmon, noted that same sex marriage was not legal in Oregon at the time the plaintiffs requested the cake in 2013.

Perceived insults?

Last Friday, the judge who presided over the trial handed the Kleins a $135,000 judgment to be paid to the same sex couple.  The judge determined that $75,000 was to be issued to Rachel Bowman Cryer and $60,000 to her partner.

The plaintiffs claimed they had incurred high blood pressure, loss of confidence and “resumption of a smoking habit” due to the Klein’s decision to not honor their request.

The Kleins have 10 days to file objections and petition the fine.  Oregon state labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, has the authority to determine the final amount of the damages the they will be required to pay for exercising their religious civil rights.

Fund raiser taken down

During the court proceedings GoFundMe, a fund raising website, assisted the Kleins in raising $109,000.  However, after the verdict, GoFundMe was intimidated by a disgruntled individual, compelling them to promptly withdraw their support by removing the couple’s fund raising campaign from their website.

Donations to the Kleins can now be made through Samaritan’s Purse, Persecuted Christians USA 1(800) 528-1980.

Aaron and Melissa Klein have been forced to close their bakery.  They admit that the $135,000 fine could force them to file bankruptcy and lose their livelihood.

Showing 3 comments
  • anarchyst

    As much as homosexuals vehemently deny it, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably linked. Almost all homosexuals have had their first homosexual "experience" introduced to them by an ADULT homosexual as pre-teen males. This, in itself constitutes homosexual pedophilia, which is criminal behavior in itself and is a way to destroy a pre-teen child for life.
    The so-called Roman Catholic priest "child abuse scandal" was actually homosexual pedophilia in action. Of course the "mainstream media" could not afford to offend the "homosexual community" by calling what it really was–thereby, the "play on words", calling it "child sex abuse" rather than homosexual pedophilia–the true definition of their sordid behavior.
    I must play "devil's advocate" when it comes to the Catholic church homosexual pedophilic priest "problem"…The Catholic church was "caught between a rock and a hard place" and had every right to be concerned about how many false claims would be made by those parishioners who belonged to the parish at the same time as this behavior was going on. Follow the money… Of course, there is (and was) absolutely NO EXCUSE for this homosexual pedophilic behavior…
    Sad to say, the homosexuals are at it again, encouraging the "psychiatric community" to change the definition of pedophilia from a psychiatric "disorder" to a mere "lifestyle", not unlike what was done for homosexuality… sick, huh??

  • anarchyst

    …the original premise of the 1957 and 1964 "civil-rights (for some)" acts were to prohibit "discrimination" in dealings with governments–not private businesses.
    Although well-intentioned, it has morphed into the monstrosity we live with today. "Freedom of association" was effectively abolished (at least for whites) and replaced with (government sanctioned and forced) "public accommodation".
    No longer is it acceptable to "screen your clientele", even if it goes against your deeply-held religious convictions.
    Homosexuals have been targeting Christian-owned bakeries, photographers and other firms in order to harass and extract (actually extort) money from those business owners who do not share their "lifestyle". Their "in your face" attitudes will eventually "be their downfall" when decent people have had enough.
    Tolerance does not mean acceptance and will never result in changed attitudes among those do not share their "lifestyle". Hence the use of these so-called "civil-rights (for some)" laws a a club in which to "force" acceptance

  • Paul

    The couple might have stood a better chance if they had defended their position using Natural Law instead of Divine Law. Meaning, instead of discrimination and seen as them forcing their religious beliefs onto same-sex unions, argue that same-sex marriages does condone and encourage division, not unity, in a society based on sex. Further, it weakens and does not secure the prosperity (future generations) of a society. Marriage by itself, regardless if same-sex or heterosexual is based on sexual discrimination in the choosing of one sex over another as a partner since bigamy isn't legal. Another problem is that religious employees who work for businesses they don't own probably will believe they should have the same right to discriminate against same-sex marriages. The problem with that is….it is one thing for the owners of a business to want to deny same-sex couples service compared to people who only work for a business. Further, I do believe that by using Natural Law the owners stand a better chance to win since their rights and the right of an employee who only works for a company isn't the same as when using Divine Law. In short, it is left up to the owners to make the decision, not the individual. Meaning an owner has the right, whereas an employee who doesn't own the company………..doesn't have the right to discriminate. If he or she doesn't like it, they can always seek employment somewhere else or start their own business.

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search