State Silences Bakers Who
Refused to Make Cake for
Lesbian Couple, Fines
Them $135K
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized
a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and
Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make
a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000
in emotional damages to the couple they denied
service.
a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and
Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make
a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000
in emotional damages to the couple they denied
service.
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to
serve someone because of their sexual orientation.
Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
serve someone because of their sexual orientation.
Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag
order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and
desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting
to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and
desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting
to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by
Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their
Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon
we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of
speech.”
Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their
Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon
we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of
speech.”
Get our emails for free.
The cease and desist came about after Aaron and
Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the
interview, Aaron said among other things, “This
fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”
Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the
interview, Aaron said among other things, “This
fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”
Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-
Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the
Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from
acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation
(in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that
the place of public accommodation would
discriminate.
Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the
Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from
acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation
(in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that
the place of public accommodation would
discriminate.
Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and
Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw
out the argument in the “proposed order” he
issued back in April.
Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw
out the argument in the “proposed order” he
issued back in April.
But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making
the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision.
the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision.
“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and
Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein]
to cease and desist from publishing, circulating,
issuing or displaying, or causing to be published …
any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from
or denied to, or that any discrimination be made
against, any person on account of their sexual
orientation,” Avakian wrote.
Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein]
to cease and desist from publishing, circulating,
issuing or displaying, or causing to be published …
any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from
or denied to, or that any discrimination be made
against, any person on account of their sexual
orientation,” Avakian wrote.
The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, was shocked by
the provision.
the provision.
“Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this
case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose
beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she
told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the
Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to
be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen
attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do
not agree with government sanctioned ideas.”
case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose
beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she
told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the
Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to
be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen
attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do
not agree with government sanctioned ideas.”
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The
Heritage Foundation, called the order “outrageous”
and said citizens of Oregon should be “ashamed.”
Heritage Foundation, called the order “outrageous”
and said citizens of Oregon should be “ashamed.”
“This order is an outrageous abuse of the rights
of the Kleins to freely practice their religion under
the First Amendment,” he said.
of the Kleins to freely practice their religion under
the First Amendment,” he said.
It is exactly this kind of oppressive
persecution
by government officials that led the pilgrims to America. And Commissioner Avakian’s order
that the Kleins stop speaking about this case
is even more outrageous—and also a
fundamental violation of their right to free
speech under the First Amendment.Avakian would have fit right in as a bureaucrat
in the Soviet Union or Red China. Oregon
should be ashamed that such an unprincipled, scurrilous individual is a government official
in the state.
The case began in February 2013 when Rachel
and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint against
the Kleins for refusing to bake them a wedding cake.
and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint against
the Kleins for refusing to bake them a wedding cake.
At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon.
The Bowman-Cryers’ complaint went to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which is in charge
of defending the law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics, called the Equality Act of 2007.
of defending the law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics, called the Equality Act of 2007.
In January 2014, the agency found the Kleins
unlawfully discriminated against the couple because
of their sexual orientation. In April, McCullough recommended they pay $75,000 to Rachel and
$60,000 to Laurel.
unlawfully discriminated against the couple because
of their sexual orientation. In April, McCullough recommended they pay $75,000 to Rachel and
$60,000 to Laurel.
In order to reach the total amount, $135,000,
Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged
physical, emotional and mental damages they
claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.
Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged
physical, emotional and mental damages they
claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.
Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
In their Facebook post, the Kleins signaled their
intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We
will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of
violating the cease and desist.
intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We
will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of
violating the cease and desist.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.