Oregon Bakery Wasn’t Fined For Discrimination, But For Emotional Distress

Wedding_cake_01
Image via Wikipedia Commons


By now, most of us have heard of the case of the Oregon bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, who was court-ordered to pay a lesbian couple $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake, citing religious beliefs against same-sex marriage as the reason for their discrimination against them.

Fox News, staying true to form, reported the case as one of religious discrimination against Christians, stating that:

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were punished by the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) for unlawfully discriminating against a same-sex couple…(and the Kleins were)?slapped with a gag order that prohibits them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex unions.”

Sean Hannity featured the Kleins in an interview, who said that refused to bake the cake after praying because they wanted:

“Everything that we do in our shop to glorify God.”

As it turns out, the fine was never levied against the couple because of discrimination?against Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer. A thorough reading of the decision of the court shows that the Kleins were fined for the emotional distress they caused the couple when they posted identifying information on social media, endangering the lives and safety of their children.

While the original decision stated that Aaron Klein violated statute ORS 659A.403 (which makes discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation illegal in Oregon), the final order of the appellate court?found him in violation of ORS 659A.409, which states that:

It is “an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation…to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.”

Raw Story reports that Klein posted on Facebook the notice he received from the Department of Justice stating that the business was reported for discrimination against the Bowman-Cryers, which is illegal in the state of Oregon. That notice included the names of the couple who had filed the complaint. The post was later deleted, but the damage had been done.

The couple began receiving death threats against them and their children after the case was featured on the news, including the names of the complainants,?which had been pulled from that original Facebook post. Because the Bowman-Cryers were in the process of adopting their twin special-needs daughters, a real threat existed that the girls would be removed from their custody, since

“State adoption officials told them they were responsible for keeping their two foster daughters safe from those threats, and they feared they could lose custody of the girls ? who they have since adopted.”

Publishing the notice on Facebook as a refusal to provide service to the couple, therefore, caused them emotional suffering as they feared for the lives, safety, and continued ability to protect and raise their children.

This was NEVER about religious freedoms being trampled, but the ruling in the case makes that true on a whole different level.