Tweet
Re: Doing work you don't like
I looked online to find out whether Sweet Cakes was invited to cater or participate in the ceremony, and I don’t see anything that suggests that. My understanding is that they were just asked to bake a cake.
You might want to look at the findings of fact and order issued by Oregon’s Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industry, which has quite a few interesting details about this specific situation .... I bet nobody involved wanted or intended to become part of this sort of media circus. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf
The lesbian couple, Laurel and Rachel, had already chosen a catering service and a venue, West End Ballroom. Both the caterer and the ballroom recommended Sweet Cakes. [Page 9]
A couple of years earlier, Rachel and Laurel bought a wedding cake at Sweet Cakes for Rachel’s mother’s wedding, and they were all very pleased with the cake. They spoke with Sweet Cakes at a Portland bridal show, and Rachel and her mother made an appointment for a tasting. [Page 5]
Aaron Klein, the owner of the bakery, was interviewed on the radio and said:
"Well as far as to how it unfolded, it was just, you know, business as usual. We had a bride come in. She wanted to try some wedding cake. Return customer. Came in, sat down. I simply asked the bride and groom’s first name and date of the wedding. She kind of giggled and informed me it was two brides. At that point, I apologized. I said ‘I’m very sorry, I feel like you may have wasted your time. You know we don’t do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.’ And she got upset, noticeably, and I understand that. Got up, walked out, and you know, that was, I figured the end of it." [Page 24]
Other interesting nuggets of information:
Rachel and her mother drove away, and soon afterwards her mother returned to talk with Mr. Klein on her own. She told him she used to think like him but "her truth had changed as a result of having two gay children." In response Mr. Klein quoted Leviticus 18:22. [Page 6]
Rachel was crying as they drove home and spend a fair amount of time crying that day and over the next few days. Laurel e-mailed the manager of the ballroom to let her know what had happened, since she felt other people needed to know the bakery’s policy and avoid this sort of unpleasant experience in the future. [Pages 8-9]
Rachel’s mother contacted another local bakery, "Pastry Girl" and arranged for a cake tasting. While making the appointment she checked with the owner and confirmed they had no problems providing a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. [Page 11]
In this thread, several people have asked why the couple decided to sue the bakery ... why they didn’t just find a different bakery. After the Sweet Cakes tasting, that same evening, Laurel filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice over her smart phone, saying they had been refused service. This strikes me as an impulsive decision, motivated by a desire to protect Rachel, who was upstairs crying. [Pages 7 to 9]
As a standard procedure, the complaint was shared with the owners of the bakery, and Mr. Klein posted it on his Facebook page. The complaint included contact information for the two women who planned to marry, and the story hit the media. (Later in the day the Facebook post was removed.) [Pages 12-13]
This document includes several pages evaluating the reliability of each person who testified, and noting which specific parts of their testimony the commissioner relied on. Very interesting! [Page 19 - 21]
Mr. Klein has not sought the media, although he has given interviews when the media contacted him. Laurel and Rachel have never contacted the media and have never given any interviews. Rachel testified that the media circus was a greater problem for her then the original denial of service. [Pages 19 -20]
What I get from plowing through this document, and picturing the human beings involved, is how very complicated the situation was, and how emotional it was. The findings of fact state "Rachel felt depressed and questioned whether there was something inherently wrong with the sexual orientation she was born with and if she and Laurel deserved to be married...." [Page 10]
If you are interested, there are many more details about the specific situation in the legal document.
Originally posted by Polish_Silver
View Post
You might want to look at the findings of fact and order issued by Oregon’s Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industry, which has quite a few interesting details about this specific situation .... I bet nobody involved wanted or intended to become part of this sort of media circus. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf
The lesbian couple, Laurel and Rachel, had already chosen a catering service and a venue, West End Ballroom. Both the caterer and the ballroom recommended Sweet Cakes. [Page 9]
A couple of years earlier, Rachel and Laurel bought a wedding cake at Sweet Cakes for Rachel’s mother’s wedding, and they were all very pleased with the cake. They spoke with Sweet Cakes at a Portland bridal show, and Rachel and her mother made an appointment for a tasting. [Page 5]
Aaron Klein, the owner of the bakery, was interviewed on the radio and said:
"Well as far as to how it unfolded, it was just, you know, business as usual. We had a bride come in. She wanted to try some wedding cake. Return customer. Came in, sat down. I simply asked the bride and groom’s first name and date of the wedding. She kind of giggled and informed me it was two brides. At that point, I apologized. I said ‘I’m very sorry, I feel like you may have wasted your time. You know we don’t do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.’ And she got upset, noticeably, and I understand that. Got up, walked out, and you know, that was, I figured the end of it." [Page 24]
Other interesting nuggets of information:
Rachel and her mother drove away, and soon afterwards her mother returned to talk with Mr. Klein on her own. She told him she used to think like him but "her truth had changed as a result of having two gay children." In response Mr. Klein quoted Leviticus 18:22. [Page 6]
Rachel was crying as they drove home and spend a fair amount of time crying that day and over the next few days. Laurel e-mailed the manager of the ballroom to let her know what had happened, since she felt other people needed to know the bakery’s policy and avoid this sort of unpleasant experience in the future. [Pages 8-9]
Rachel’s mother contacted another local bakery, "Pastry Girl" and arranged for a cake tasting. While making the appointment she checked with the owner and confirmed they had no problems providing a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. [Page 11]
In this thread, several people have asked why the couple decided to sue the bakery ... why they didn’t just find a different bakery. After the Sweet Cakes tasting, that same evening, Laurel filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice over her smart phone, saying they had been refused service. This strikes me as an impulsive decision, motivated by a desire to protect Rachel, who was upstairs crying. [Pages 7 to 9]
As a standard procedure, the complaint was shared with the owners of the bakery, and Mr. Klein posted it on his Facebook page. The complaint included contact information for the two women who planned to marry, and the story hit the media. (Later in the day the Facebook post was removed.) [Pages 12-13]
This document includes several pages evaluating the reliability of each person who testified, and noting which specific parts of their testimony the commissioner relied on. Very interesting! [Page 19 - 21]
Mr. Klein has not sought the media, although he has given interviews when the media contacted him. Laurel and Rachel have never contacted the media and have never given any interviews. Rachel testified that the media circus was a greater problem for her then the original denial of service. [Pages 19 -20]
What I get from plowing through this document, and picturing the human beings involved, is how very complicated the situation was, and how emotional it was. The findings of fact state "Rachel felt depressed and questioned whether there was something inherently wrong with the sexual orientation she was born with and if she and Laurel deserved to be married...." [Page 10]
If you are interested, there are many more details about the specific situation in the legal document.
Comment