Regardless of one's stance on these issues, it should be obvious that if the legalization of same-sex "marriage" is a national story, the determination by the radical left and its government "civil rights" enforcers to brutally punish those who won't support it because it violates the religious beliefs of the "offenders" should also be.
The former dominated the news last week. But the Associated Press failed to give national treatment to the arguably most outrageous instance of the latter, the $135,000 fine levied against Aaron and Melissa Klein and their now-shuttered Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Oregon for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex "wedding." The New York Times, perhaps not wishing to kill the positive buzz over the Supreme Court's ruling last week, has not published a story at all — even though it did cover an administrative judge's late-April finding that the couple violated Oregon's anti-discrimination laws.
The fine is especially egregious because at the time of the cakemaking request, same-sex "marriage" was not even legal in Oregon (that didn't occur until May 19, 2014). So the lesbian couple requesting the service was asking the Kleins to violate their religious beliefs and to be connected with a then-illegal act.
But as readers will see in the AP's coverage — which is indeed not at its main national or Big Story site — the judge, in his ruling, disingenuosuly dodged that issue (bolds are mine):
Owners of a Portland-area bakery that denied service to a same-sex couple must pay $135,000 in damages, the Bureau of Labor and Industries has ruled.
The damages are for emotional suffering caused by Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which two years ago refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer.
A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organizations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers.
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.
In April, an administrative law judge proposed the same damages.
The bakers said their refusal to bake for the lesbian couple was prompted by religious beliefs. The case has been cited in the national debate over religious freedom and discrimination against gays.
Brad Avakian had to say that the case wasn't about marriage, or he couldn't have levied any fine. That's because two years ago, same-sex "marriage" was illegal. His fine and a judge's previous late-April ruling which preceded it seem to open up a huge can of worms.
These people have decided that a 2007 anti-discrimination law was more important than marriage law in effect at the time of the lesbian couple's request. There doesn't seem to be anything preventing that dangerous "logic" from being extended to mean that a homosexual person, couple or group can make any number of illegal requests of a nonreligious institution. Because the anti-discrimination law now trumps all other law, if that institution refuses to serve them for any reason, it would appear to be vulnerable to a discrimination charge that the refusal occurred because the person or person refused service believe that the refusal occurred because of their sexual orientation. If there's a reason this interpretation isn't valid, I'd sure like to hear it.
The last excerpted paragraph — "The case has been cited in the national debate" — is a de facto admission that the AP should have given the story national treatment, and didn't.
Why not? Was it because they would prefer that as few people as possible know that the Supreme Court's "historic" ruling might drive Christians and other believers in traditional marriage out of the public square?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
