Oregon Christian Bakery Under 'Rehabilitation' for Refusing to Make Same-Sex Wedding Cake
Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a family-owned business in Oregon, is being investigated by the Bureau of Labor and Industries for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. The Christian owners are being accused of discriminating based on sexuality, and may face heavy fines and penalties if found guilty. Despite pressure from gay-rights activists, they are upholding their beliefs and their right to religious freedom.
ot the beliefs of the clientsThe Christian bakers told Fox News that they have declined requests to bake cakes for homosexual weddings because it goes against their Christian faith - “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” the couple said - “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.” They had refused to serve a lesbian couple in January who has now filed a lawsuit for discrimination based on sexuality in a public place. The Oregon law “protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations.” While there is an exemption to the legislation for religious organizations, business owners with religious convictions against homosexual practice are not given exception.
The Oregonian quotes Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian as saying: "The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate."
“To say that this couple needs to be ‘rehabilitated’ for believing and practicing the values on which this nation was founded is entirely beyond the pale,” says [Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association].
“This sounds like Stalinist Russia or China under Mao, where those who thought for themselves were forced under government coercion into re-education camps. This is not the America that was given to us by our Founders.”
Washington Sues Christian Florist for Refusing to Service Same-Sex Wedding
A Washington Christian florist is being sued by the Washington State and the American Civil Liberties Union for refusing to service a same-sex couple for their marriage because of her faith in Jesus Christ.
Along with attorneys’ fees and costs, the lawsuit seeks $2,000 in fines for each violation and an injunction requires Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A court date has not yet been set.
“When it came to doing his wedding, I said, ‘I could not do it because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ He thanked me and said, ‘He respected my opinion.’ We talked and gave each other a hug and he left,” said Stutzman. “I believe, biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my conviction, yours may be different.”
Attorney General Bob Ferguson has sent a letter to Stutzman to sign an Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD), where she would “agree not to discriminate against consumers based on their sexual orientation in the future.” However, she stood by her original decision and responded through her attorney.
“As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” Ferguson announced Tuesday of the lawsuit. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their wedding, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
According to Los Angeles Times, American Civil Liberties Union would file a separate civil suit for damages on behalf of Ingersoll and his partner unless Stutzman agrees to provide flowers without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, publish a letter of apology in the newspaper and donate $5,000 to a local youth center, in lieu of attorney’s fees.
“It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years,” the ACLU letter said.
JD Bristol, Stutzman’s Snohomish-based attorney, told Tri-City Herald that he and his client agree businesses are prohibited from discriminating against people because of their faith, ethnicity and sexual orientation. However, this isn’t the issue here, he argued.
“The objection isn’t because the client is gay, it’s because of the event,” he said, according to the Herald. “That’s based on religious sentiment.”
Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?
No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?
Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.
So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.
What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?
There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:
Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
The real problems with this whole thought is the fact that the government thinks people need “Rehabilitation”; your thinking is wrong if you do not agree with them. Tolerance means your acceptance of them, but they are not willing to be tolerant of you. In either of these cases the product could and would have been supplied by other providers, yet they insist upon the people who object be forced to provide the service. All the “Tolerant Bigots” of the left tell me I should not judge while they are judging me.
In both of these cases the refusal was based on the “EVENT” not the beliefs or sexuality of the clients. It is a belief based on the religious values to not condone a sinful act.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Romans 1:26-31  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
I do not judge others God judges them and provides me the standard by which He judges.
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Just my thoughts for today.