Bakery Finally Pays Bigot Fine For Not Making Cake for Gay Couple
The Oregon couple have finally paid the damages.
Aaron Klein, a co-owner of the Portland-based bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa, paid $136,000 on Monday, after a two-year battle over the issue. He and his staff had refused to make a wedding cake for same-sex couple Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer, saying that it was against their religious beliefs.
The fine was ordered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI),which claims that the owners’ refusal violates the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
84 responses to Bakery Finally Pays Bigot Fine For Not Making Cake for Gay Couple
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Suzanne McFly December 29th, 2015 at 13:16
Ha ha….
Mike December 29th, 2015 at 13:27
Ah the Klein’s…very appropriate name for two “small” minded religious ignoramuses.
maggie December 29th, 2015 at 13:40
it’s also fraud glad they paid up
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 13:42
Imagine all the good will they would have gained if they had originally made the cake and let it leak to the press. And saved $136,000 to boot. Religion makes you stupid. Unless you were stupid to begin with, it makes you stupider.
Bunya December 29th, 2015 at 13:46
$136,000 wasn’t nearly enough. It should have been in the millions. That would’ve sent a message to the feeble-minded religious kooks out there.
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 13:56
I wonder how much they collected from morons with too much money on their Gofundme page.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 29th, 2015 at 14:03
I do believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $800,000.
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 14:10
If that’s true, then it’s just stupidity that they didn’t pay the fine on time, and threw away several thousand in interest. But then again, it wasn’t their money. I hope they at least have to claim it as income, so they pay the taxes on it. That’s a whole lot of stupid money.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 29th, 2015 at 14:15
I lied, it’s about half that. Still plenty to cover their fine though, and they’re still in business.
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 14:23
What they did is no different than what the racists in NC in the 50’s did who refused to serve blacks at the lunch counter. They proved to be stupid business people by refusing to take money from paying customers. No one was asking them to marry them, or to approve of their lifestyle, just to provide a service.
whatthe46 December 29th, 2015 at 15:52
and Uncle Sam will get his share.
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 15:52
So it is taxable?
whatthe46 December 29th, 2015 at 19:06
yep
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 08:58
$136,000 PLUS their gofundme account would have been more just.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 09:16
lets those that are financially backing their lawless criminal acts pay too.
FatRat December 29th, 2015 at 13:55
I’d gone to Sexy Cakes. Far better customer service.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexy-cakes/n10536
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 29th, 2015 at 14:05
How stupid do you have to be to go into business to bake cakes, and then tell someone that you won’t bake them a cake?
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 14:10
Especially when the reason is completely bullshit.
allison1050 December 29th, 2015 at 14:30
Would have been a whole lot cheaper to put the effin biases aside and bake them a damned cake.
Foundryman December 29th, 2015 at 14:35
I hope another gay couple walks into their shop today.
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 15:41
I’d order a cake even if I wasn’t getting married, just to piss them off, and make sure the media knew about it. Make them go through it all over again.
allison1050 December 29th, 2015 at 16:41
lol! I bet they couldn’t bake that cake fast enough now. ;o)
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 06:37
If I’m not mistaken they no longer have an actual shop, just their online business. Lots hard to catch “teh gay” through the Intertubes.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 08:57
why not order one, as a NOTED GAY to celebrate a baker being burned for lawless religious hypocrisy?
William December 29th, 2015 at 14:36
Hey, it’s RIGHT there in the republican Bible…you….you…..HEATHEN!
Larry Schmitt December 29th, 2015 at 14:40
Blessed are the queers cakers.
bpollen December 30th, 2015 at 05:05
This one’s FABulous!
Foundryman December 29th, 2015 at 14:19
Good, all these right wing religious fanatics need to get knocked down a notch or two. Saying goodbye to 136,000 dollars is a good start.
Maybe the next time they will simply do business or shut down and get a real job.
BillPasadena December 29th, 2015 at 16:12
I don’t believe that people should be allowed to voice their opinions if it bothers someone else.
bpollen December 29th, 2015 at 16:24
Good for you. Too bad your posting history shows you’re lying.
bushputz December 29th, 2015 at 16:53
Your opinion bothers me. Please delete your comment.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 08:51
hell, why not just ask him to delete himself, then NOBODY’s voiced opinions will bother him at all.
Obewon December 30th, 2015 at 06:29
Have you ever been to the Huntington Library in Pasadena?
Pinkie – Huntington Library huntington.org › Art Collections : › European Art: Huntington Library Sarah Barrett Moulton: Pinkie (1794) by Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830) oil on canvas, 58 1/4 x 40 1/4 inches. Pinkie, facing The Blue Boy in the Thornton Portrait Gallery. http://huntington.org/webassets/templates/general.aspx?id=14394
Hirightnow December 30th, 2015 at 07:07
My grandparents had reproductions of both of those portraits (Pinky and Blue Boy) in their living room.
I always thought they were a “matched set”.
Apparently not…not intentionally, anyway.
mistlesuede December 29th, 2015 at 17:36
That’s a pretty hefty fine for what is probably a fairly small business. Hope they’ve learned not to be bigots from this.
I imagine the fake news network is going to be going bonkers over this news. LOL
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 06:34
It will not have a large effect on them, as they got over 400k in bigot bucks.
mistlesuede December 30th, 2015 at 10:39
Let me guess, Go Fund Me or something? That makes me sick.
Do you know if they have to pay taxes on those bigot bucks?
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 10:51
About 100k from GoFundMe, until they gave them the boot. Then the rest of some Christian “Be a bigot, Get rich quick” site.
mistlesuede December 30th, 2015 at 11:01
Apparently these “Christians” have way too much money. It’s absolutely disgusting how maggots like this are always bailed out by the so-called Christians. I hope they have to pay taxes on all this “help.”
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 11:24
It is quite possible that they won’t have to pay taxes on it.
mistlesuede December 30th, 2015 at 13:44
That is absolutely wrong if they don’t.
Emma Bishop December 30th, 2015 at 00:06
Their Go Fund Me page seems to have paid off for them.
Windfall!
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 05:34
At least 34 musicians have attempted to stop political candidates from using their songs.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/stop-using-my-song-34-artists-who-fought-politicians-over-their-music-20150708
Bakers create cakes. Musicians create songs. If bakers have no right to control how their products are used, why should musicians?
Obewon December 30th, 2015 at 06:04
Music copyrights. D’oh! This is “Equal rights” Oregon’s adjudication of $136,000 The fine was ordered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI),which claims that the owners’ refusal violates the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The couple discriminated against were regular customers known by these bigots.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 07:00
“Music copyrights.”
Wrong. Copyright law prohibits someone from copying another person’s work and passing it off as their own. It does not prevent someone from using a licensed copy of a work. When you purchase a recording (e.g. a DVD), you are purchasing a right to use the work. The author can place certain restrictions on its use, such as disallowing use as background music in a bar or use in public gatherings. But copyright law does not allow usage restrictions based upon the political orientation of the user or the audience.
OldLefty December 30th, 2015 at 07:23
See;
http://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/political_campaign.pdf
Ironically, they won’t allow you to copy and paste.
Thomas Brown December 30th, 2015 at 08:32
You’re an idiot. You don’t know the first thing about the rules of use. It has nothing to do with the politics of the user. If a restaurant buys a copy of a Beatles song, but then uses it in their commercials, that’s illegal. Same with politicians.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 08:43
No, that’s not the issue. Music publishers often sell licenses allowing use of their works at public venues, for a fee. If a musician wants the publisher to grant such licenses only to certain politicians, and not other politicians who are willing to pay the required fee, that’s discriminatory.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 08:49
so gay couples have the right to play gospel music to celebrate their wedding commitments at the county clerk’s office?
like: Jesus is coming again
or
amazing grace
or
some really far out Black Sabbath tunes?
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 08:56
Why wouldn’t they? Seriously? I actually know a lesbian who attends church regularly. She doesn’t agree with everything she hears during the homily, but she still wants to be part of a faith community, and that includes singing hymns. I have no trouble imagining gays listening to gospel music.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 09:04
well good.
a point we finally agree on.
BTW: wouldn’t it be nice if the South Florida gay community were to send a very special thank you to Franklin Graham via national media for his financial support of their celebration of gay pride day?
It would make a lot of folks at Wells Fargo feel a lot better about losing the Graham Enterprises TAX FREE accounts.
bpollen December 31st, 2015 at 07:17
Show me the copyright law that says that political positions are protected. Without that, your analogy isn’t analogous other than both produce products. Cakes are covered under food laws, bakeries are covered under laws that proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and music is covered under copyright laws that do not list politicians as a protected class. So – different businesses under entirely different laws, one selling perishable goods, the other selling a product that continues to exist after it has been used properly. I can listen to a song again, I can read a book again, I can see a movie again. But they are just exactly like with maybe a week’s life expectancy.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 08:44
if they were to provide a disclaimer during the ad, they might possibly be able to avoid any legal repercussions, but how good is that going to look for a campaign ad that’s trying to reach those who aren’t die hard supporters?
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 08:53
Many years ago, when I was thinking about a career in photography, I read a book about the legal aspects of photography. The book said that if you photograph a nude woman behaving badly with a bottle of champagne, and the brand name is clearly visible in the photo, the manufacturer might be able to sue you for damaging their brand identity through association with unscrupulous activities. But it also said that “unscrupulous” is in the eye of the beholder. A jury composed of Muslims might decide that a photo of a woman in a miniskirt holding the champagne is damaging.
bpollen December 31st, 2015 at 06:56
If you don’t get permission to reproduce or make public use of a copyright, you are in violation of copyright law. Stealing another’s property for your own use without permission or compensation is theft, pure and simple.
You say that musicians can’t restrict people from stealing their product and making use of it publicly. Yeah, that’s EXACTLY like refusing to bake a cake because you don’t like how they were born. Because politicians were effectively coming into the musician’s “bakery” and stealing the “cakes” and the couple these faux Kristians refused were perfectly willing to pay the going rate. WOW. Perfect analogy. Trying to stop people from stealing your product is just like being a bigot and whiner and violator of anti-discrimination laws.
Boy, you must be so proud that this was YOUR idea.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 06:32
What sort of discrimination is not okay with you?
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 07:03
I object to double standards. I expect people to live up to the standards by which they judge others. If we’re going to hold bakers to a certain standard, then we ought to hold musicians to the same standard. Do you object to that? If so, why?
OldLefty December 30th, 2015 at 07:18
That is EXACTLY what is happening here.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 07:27
Well, your first problem is your apples to oranges comparison of a song to a cake. I don’t have anything pressing to do today, so let the mental gymnastics ensue.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 08:31
No gymnastics required. I am a software developer, and in the past I have licensed my copyrighted products to thousands of customers in dozens of countries. I am not aware of any laws which would give me the right to restrict how and where anyone uses my products, except for the terms spelled out in the license agreement. These agreements almost always limit the number of users, which corresponds to limitations on size of an audience when playing recorded music. Many software vendors offer “site licenses” which allow large or unlimited number of users at a particular location. This corresponds to a license that a song publisher might issue to a campaign that wants to play a song in a public venue. But those restrictions are based upon the number and locations of the users or listeners. They are not, and should not be, based upon the age, gender, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or political orientation of the users or listeners. If Bruce Springsteen can dictate that only liberal politicians can license his music for public venues, then I could dictate that only conservative politicians can license my software for use at their campaign headquarters. Both propositions are ridiculous. If you are going to license a copyrighted work for a particular size of audience, then you have to license it to anyone. If Bernie Sanders is filmed holding a copy of my software and saying “We use this product to search public databases and dig up dirt on Republicans”, I might not like it, but there isn’t anything I can do about it. If you license a copyrighted product, you license it to everybody. Any restrictions you place on the license apply equally to everybody. Anything else would be discriminatory.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 09:38
I was seeing the issue in the sense of the politicians using the works without license, rather than denying the license based on political views.
Perhaps it could be an issue with the fact that those songs are inextricably linked to the identity of the artist. When I hear “Born to Run” I automatically think of Bruce Springsteen. It is forcing someone to lend their speech to a particular person or idea.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 09:49
“It is forcing someone to lend their speech to a particular person or idea.”
If a baker’s brand name was famous, and they inscribed their name on every cake, would it be acceptable for them to omit the brand name from a cake purchased for a purpose with which the baker did not wish to be associated? That seems like a direct parallel with musicians not wanting their identity associated with particular political causes.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 10:17
If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there’d be no work for tinkers’ hands.
It’s a direct parallel that you pulled straight out of your a**.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 10:29
Cop out. It’s a valid comparison and you know it.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 30th, 2015 at 10:50
No, it’s an attempt to compare reality to the hypothetical. But I’ll play your silly little game. Why does a baker go into business to bake things?
mistlesuede December 30th, 2015 at 11:08
Not at all. You can try to compare apples to oranges, but they cannot be. It’s two different things including the fact that the music lives on and would be associated with a$$holes that the artists do not want it to be connected with forever. The cake is gone after consumption and no one really gives a crap who baked it when it is being consumed.
I can’t believe how stupid your “argument” is. I’m not surprised though.
Obewon December 30th, 2015 at 09:38
Even Ted Cruz isn’t that Dim: Cruz answers a flat ‘No’ when asked whether fighting gay marriage is a ‘top-three priority,’ http://www.alan.com/2015/12/23/cruz-in-private-says-he-wont-fight-gay-marriage/
Conservatives take longer than everyone else to figure things out. Canadian Cruz finally figuredout: Conservative Majority SCOTUS ruled in 2014 & again in 2015 equal marriage upholds the 10th & 14th equally throughout the entire USA! Nobody is citing Music Copyrights as a 10th & 14th Amendment issue.
bpollen December 31st, 2015 at 06:46
The bakers had a license agreement that required them to comply with all applicable laws. So even your own analogy about your extensive career in not-music shows that your analogy doesn’t hold up. They VIOLATED their license agreement. Show that same violation of applicable law that these musicians supposedly violated… But of course, you can’t because they DON’T have applicable law committing them to not discriminating against protected classes – like reich-wing demagogues and bigots. In fact, I believe you can find NO law that makes politicians of any ilk a protected class.
It’s not so much apples to oranges, it’s more like comparing apples to kimchi. One makes sense, the other stinks to high heaven.
Thomas Brown December 30th, 2015 at 08:29
Does it hurt to be that stupid? Seriously.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 08:32
You tell me.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 08:37
quoting a 4th grade playground bully ain’t exactly an answer.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 08:36
because musicians don’t bake their songs and only allow certain people to buy them?
far as I know, musicians are happy to SELL their songs to whoever wants to BUY them?
but! – just because you might buy their song doesn’t mean you can use them just anywhere you want (read the terms of purchase copyrights, etc.)
if bakers want to place those restrictions on their products, let ’em have at in – within the written law.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 08:41
Wrong. The issue is that some musicians want to sell licenses for use at public events to SOME politicians but not OTHER politicians, even when those politicians are prepared to pay the required license fee.
granpa.usthai December 30th, 2015 at 09:11
then fight for ‘political equality’.
maybe show some nuclear blasts superimposed on a tr*mp white racist rally while playing ‘eve of destruction’.
?
that ought to stir somebody up somewhere to do something!
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 09:27
As a non-religious person, I find it galling that the government affords protections to members of religious communities that are not afforded to other people whose convictions are just as strong, but not aligned with organized religion. And I see no difference between religion and politics in this regard. Both are systems of belief. Why should a person’s belief in the proper time and place for baptism be held in higher regard by the government than a person’s belief in the immorality of providing foreign aid to brutal dictators?
If we don’t allow discrimination on the basis of religious belief, then we shouldn’t allow discrimination on the basis of political belief. If you license a product for use in public venues, then you should not be able to dictate who is speaking or who is in attendance at those venues.
bpollen December 31st, 2015 at 06:37
Doesn’t require a license to write songs or sell them. And choosing to refuse service because of, say, the bigotry of the candidate, or the policies the promote, is in no way analogous to blatant discrimination and violating the codes that ALL other bakers are subject to.
Maybe your SHOULD take your arguments and comparisons from prominent reich-wingers. Your self-service quality is really substandard. Geez… as if politicians are a protected class in copyright law…
Obewon December 30th, 2015 at 09:21
Bigots create hate. Go to Hell.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 09:29
Sorry. I don’t believe in the existence of Hell.
Obewon December 30th, 2015 at 09:32
You’re a total moron not knowing the difference between a bigoted baker’s food and a music copyrighted durable good!.
Hate-radio Limbots sold you this crap on GOP TV & you bought it.
Robert M. Snyder December 30th, 2015 at 09:47
Wrong again. I thought of the comparison myself. I don’t take my directions from any famous personality or any group. I’ve always gone against the crowd. Any crowd. Including this one.
Obewon December 30th, 2015 at 09:51
There is absolutely no relationship to cakes and SCOTUS upholding Equal marriage via the 10th & 14th. You’re Constitutionally “overruled.” 2,000+ Federal marriage benefits don’t equal a cake!
bpollen December 31st, 2015 at 06:31
You don’t understand copyright, you think bakeries are LIKE musicians, and that copyright holders have no right to determine who can be licensed to make use of that copyright because bakers with a licensed storefront business doesn’t get to refuse service under antidiscrimination laws…
Why should anybody believe you would understand the answer? If simple stuff like facts interfere with your homophobia, maybe you should look into what’s behind your homophobia.
OldLefty December 30th, 2015 at 07:17
Because musicians don’t fall under “public accommodation” laws and DO fall under copyright laws..
It would be more like Apple using a Micro Soft logo without Micro Soft’s permission v a gas station refusing to serve Jews.
StoneyCurtisll December 30th, 2015 at 16:42
They could have saved themselves a lot of time and money by baking the freakin cake.