Dozens of protesters gather outside Sweet Cakes bakery
»Play Video
GRESHAM, Ore. – Protesters gathered on Saturday outside a Gresham bakery that’s at the center of a wedding cake controversy.
A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple is the subject of a state investigation. The story gained national attention since KATU News first reported it earlier this month.
Dozens of people showed up outside Sweet Cakes by Melissa Saturday afternoon to voice their opposition to Aaron Klein’s decision not to make the cake.
“That’s wrong. That’s a crime in Oregon,” said protester Rob Cochran. “I need to let people know if you’re going to do that as a business, there are going to be consequences.”
Inside the bakery, however, business is booming.
"Lots of support. Support coming through the door, support coming from - we get 25 or 30 letters a day," said Klein, who said he's been the subject of hate mail as well. "I think there are actually some photoshopped pictures of me going around that are pretty messed up, but in my opinion that really shows the morality of the people doing this."
Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement officers are looking into whether Klein broke the law when he denied the couple a cake. The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 prohibits discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The statute includes public accommodations, such as businesses.
“I don’t really care about them as individuals. The fact is, businesses cannot be allowed to discriminate,” said Cochran.
“I thought it was really great that someone would stand up for what they believe and not feel pressured at the time,” said customer Sue Anderson. “I thought it was really good that they have some feelings about life, and they’re living it.”
Aaron Klein told KATU that he’ll close down shop if he has to, but he refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding. He says it’s a religious debate.
"I think [the state labor commissioner] is going to have decide what's more important: The Oregon State Constitution, or the statute that was passed in 2007," Klein said. "They dropped the ball by not putting in any exemption for religious beliefs."
The lesbian couple at the center of the controversy received offers to make them a wedding cake from all over the country. Local baker Laura Widener, who runs the Southeast Portland bakery Pastrygirl, will make their wedding cake.
Celebrity baker Duff Goldman will also make them a second “bride’s cake” in the style of a “groom’s cake.
This is way too much trouble over nothing. They were asked to bake a cake not attend the wedding get over it.
If you deny civil rights to others then you agree with civil rights being denied to you. Just imagine the uproar if anyone felt like denying Christians services and products. What goes around, comes around.
I am amazed at the fact that those who refuse to agree with homosexuality are labelled as angry haters but instead of accepting the fact that we don't have to agree with it, they throw a fit and start slandering people's names all over the news. Â This is of course indicative of the mentality that Romans 1 speaks of when the life is on the downward spiral. Â But we must not forget to pray for their repentance. Â Remember where we all came from. Â But God did not leave us in that state. Â What grieves me most is those who claim the name of Christ and pursue this destructive lifestyle. Â It destroys the life God gave them and the lives of others around them. Â The unregenerate mind cannot comprehend this.
@Al & Barb Every person is equal under the law. This is the exact same as if the owner had refused because they were interracial or of a differant colour than the owner, or if they were of a differant religion.
Sadly, so many people just seem to refuse to get it. The couple at Sweet Cakes didn't "deny" the Lesbians a cake because they were lesbian, but, because it was a WEDDING Cake and they don't agree with same sex marriage.  All the "mean spirited" attitude seems to be coming from those who don't think that people should have a choice in what they believe or agree with. It would seem that there is always a group of people who have nothing better to do with their lives or their time than to run around and look for something to protest.Â
Confirming this fact is the New Testamentâs forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know Godâs decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26â28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9â10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural lawâthe design that God has built into human nature.
@lee986321Â Of course, you're assuming that all of that is true - which it isn't.
@lee986321Every person is equal under the law. This is the exact same as if the owner had refused because they were interracial or of a differant colour them the owner, or if they were of a differant religion.
Hmm is this illegal? I don't know, but my fiancee and I are planning our wedding ceremony in Michigan, where there aren't any LGBT protection laws, and when we were looking into places we were told by one location. "We don't have anything against same-sex couples, infact i believe it is discrimination and against the law for us not to allow you to have your ceremony here" So I do think they broke the law. While I personally wouldn't care if someone objected for religious reasons, and would just say "Ok i'll take my business elsewhere" he probably was very rude about it which is why they took it to the law.
@DrkRaven0905 No, not because he was rude - the baker is a criminal. He broke the law. Period end of story. Or are you okay with Christians shooting people because "Oh, they offended my delicate religious sensibilities"??
Has the bakery filed bankruptcy yet ?
@dougrpdx would be nice if they have
 @dougrpdx Knock it off.
 @dougrpdx No and I doubt that will. Your heart is bankrupt its self.
@lee986321 @dougrpdx So, lee, you're okay with Christians shooting people because they offended the Christians' delicate religious sensibilities? Why not? After all it does say smite the heathens, right? Old Testament = might = right. New Testament = all the old rules still apply - spake Jesus.
 @katu can we drop this already. The bakers are standing up for what they believe, the couple wants privacy and just wants to move on with their lives. Let the State decide the punishment for the crime, if it was indeed one and quite whiping up the public to get ratings.
@Jennifer Havens And standing up for the Constitution and Civil Rights means nothing to you. The baker broke the law.
 @Jennifer Havens  @katu maybe you should go advise Cake Boi the same thing -- to not go on Lars first...
@brendan @katu I agree with you there I am so sick of hearing Klien voice. Just want to slap a big piece of duct tape accross his mouth. :)
 @Jennifer Havens  I guess that'd be OK, so long as it's our religion's moral stance, right?
Â
<snicker>
Personally, I don't think this is discrimination. He just doesn't want to support their marriage, which, by the way, is technically illegal in Oregon. Last year, the same baker sold this couple a cake and he says he would do so again, just not a wedding cake. This isn't discrimationation.
@the real snoop Interesting....  So - when a gay customer comes through the door, he tells them that they can only purchase Cakes #1, #22, and #37 from the menu, and the rest he cannot sell to them due to his "religious beliefs".
Â
What a crock!
Â
That does not sound like discrimination?
 @the real snoop Yes, but he makes wedding cakes for everyone else.  That's the difference.  You make wedding cakes for one, you make them for all.  Or you show some brains and outright refuse for NO reason.  His website even advertises any/all ( I forget which at this point, they are functionally the same) occasions.
 @brendan This is beginning to sound to me a lot like....."But Mommy, Georgie has a Blue Airplane, how come I have a Red one?  I want a Blue Airplane!!!"
 @brendan  Really, does this bakery make wedding cakes for everyone else? Are you sure?
Â
Do they make wedding cakes for, let's say, polygamists?
Â
What really happened is: First, the same-sex couple found a baker with Biblical values; second, they ordered a cake that was objectionable to the baker's values; third, when they were refused, rather than find another bakery -- of which there are many in the Portland area -- they took it to the law.
Â
That's how the gay agenda works -- the one the same-sex community used to deny having.
Â
The gay agenda is to force everyone to legitimize same-sex relationships, and to strong-arm or else destroy businesses owned by people who refuse.
Â
This is a clear example of how they do it.
@just this once Denying civil rights is ok with you then. Breaking the law is ok with you then. Congrats!
 @just this once They lost them twice; once in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the second time was when they purchased the business license and agreed to follow the law. Â
Â
Which event are you referring to that is illegal? Â A same sex reception? Â Where is the law on that?
Ceremonial same-sex weddings are perfectly legal in this state, as are religious ones. Â Only civil marriages are not allowed.
How about if the event takes place in Washington? It'd be legal there.  It's not against Oregon law to take any part, no matter how small, in a same-sex wedding there.
Â
Best part about this is you didn't take the time to read all of this already, and are regurgitating already well-refuted fallacies.
 @brendanÂ
So ... would the law require the bakery to make wedding cakes for polygamists?
Â
I'm just wondering whether the bakery is legally required to cater an event that isn't even legal in this state.
Â
Are they legally required to cater "adult"-themed parties -- which ARE legal?
Â
If they can refuse to cater "adult" events, they should be able to refuse other events they object to.
Â
The only people losing their rights here are the business owners.
 @just this once This is also a clear example of NONE of this could've happened had he not broken the law.  He choose to do so.  No matter what the gay agenda is, no matter how they try they can NOT do it without that owner's express consent.  He could've simply refused for NO reason and been fine.  Instead, he chose to do the stupidest thing he could've done legally -- give a reason.  He couldn't keep his mouth shut and instead he admits to breaking the law right on camera.
What a mesmerizing campfire....to watch it as the flames dance up and about is almost hypnotical. Â It's just such a temptation....if it looks soo inviting, would it hurt me that much to step into it? Â Would I be really sorry later? Â Yep.
 @Sundowner careful not to get burnt by it.
 @lee986321  @Sundowner hey, what's up useless ?Â
 @dougrpdx I'm trying to stay out of the fray.  'Trying' doesn't always work.
 @Sundowner No.. Weird lee.. he can't seem to get enough of gay..
Â
 @dougrpdx Are you talking about someone from another site?  Someone whose moniker starts with "useless...."?
 @lee986321  @Sundowner Lee, I think they are secretly attacking us. What would you do without me.
 @TreeWizard  @Sundowner tomorrow, I will be testing a feulcell
 @lee986321 Not as surprised as the rest of us!
Â
Just poking at ya, nothing serious :)
 @lee986321  @Sundowner Lets hangout sometime.Â
 @TreeWizard  @Sundowner well, My brain is freid, I need food and sleep, what ever the hell I had last night kept me up unntil 4 am.. I am suprised Iam at all functional
 @Sundowner So if the bakery is a cooperate personhood, then what?
 @lee986321 How does a corporate personhood give thanks to god?
 @Sundowner Is that a metaphor?Â
 @TreeWizard It was when I said it 2 nights ago, it still is.
I'm sick of this "debate" as far as religion vs homosexuality. Â THIS story is about allegations that a business owner broke Oregon law by discriminating against a "protected" person/group. Â That's ALL it's about. Â It isn't about the excuse put forth by the business owner, it isn't about what any of his cakes are used for, it isn't about whether the same-sex couple planned to eat his cake or throw it at their guests, it isn't about the fact that it is currently not legal for a same-sex couple to be married in the State of Oregon, it isn't about which testament of the bible the business owner claims he's protecting, Â If he wants to conduct business in a lawful manner, he's free to do that. Â If he wants to conduct business in a manner that is contrary to current law, he's free to to that, too. Â But if the latter is the choice he makes, he will be required to take responsibility for his actions and pay all fines....probably lose his business license. Â Personally, I'm no fan of people who break the law, even laws I disagree with. Â I certainly won't give my money to any business where I know the owner is a law-breaker.
 @Sundowner I don't see how the baker has a leg to stand on legally. No one would argue that a black person could be denied service because the business owner felt that black people carried the mark of Cain. (Yes, some people interpret Genesis that way.) Or that a wedding cake could be denied to an interfaith couple because Christians shouldn't marry outside their faith. Would it be OK to deny services to a businesswoman because he believed that women should be home raising children according to his faith?
 @Sundowner again, you misunderstand the actual crux of the question here. The question is can state law override the US Constitution and I believe we will see in short order that it cannot. I'm betting we'll see the state of Oregon back off this question completely and alter their own law so as this will not be a question in the future.Â
Â
You have blinded yourself wanting to demand the ability by law to bully people into accepting you and it's not going to work.
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner I agree.
 @OrThinker A business is not an individual. You seem to misunderstand that.
 @TreeWizard  @Payton Blake  @OrThinker We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal âpersonsâ effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.
 @TreeWizard  @Payton Blake  @OrThinker so is the bakery a cooperate personhood? oh now my head is about to explode...I am hitting the hay. my poor mitochondria
 @lee986321  @Payton Blake  @OrThinker Fact that there is something called Corporate Person hood proves my point. Even if we don't know it.
 @TreeWizard Please, don't bring sortbait into this.
 @TreeWizard  @Payton Blake  @OrThinker http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-personhood/
speaks on cooperate personhood.
I won't go in to this subject, I am not learned on Cooperate Person hood
 @brendan  @Payton Blake  @OrThinker are you asking me if I am bating?Â
 @Payton Blake  @OrThinker do it.
 @brendan  @TreeWizard  @Payton Blake  @OrThinker it is called Corporate Personhood eh warning KATU may delete above comment.
 @TreeWizard  @OrThinker I could have asked many more questions.  How about we conduct a DNA profile on a business?
 @TreeWizard  @Payton Blake  @OrThinker That'd be masturbation.
 @Payton Blake  @OrThinker Wish I could like my own comment.
 @Payton Blake  @OrThinker A lot of illegals don't have those things. Proof illegals aren't human.
 @Payton Blake  @TreeWizard  @OrThinker yeah, that is the reason for the debate...it is called a Tax loop hole..mainly the wealthy use it.
 @lee986321  @TreeWizard  @OrThinker I wasn't aware a business was a living organism. Guess they skipped over that in Biology.
 @Payton Blake  @TreeWizard  @OrThinker evidently you have't heard of the isses with businesses are people to...it is another debate for another time.
 @TreeWizard  @OrThinker Really, a business is a living, breathing, human with thoughts, and feelings, etc? A business is a singular person?
Â
So what is this business's social security number? What about a drivers license, does it have that? Did this business go to school? Get its diploma? Did the business go to college? If so, what did the business major in? What was its GPA?
 @Payton Blake  @OrThinker Pretty sure it is.
 @OrThinker if you do d not mind me asking, what is the discipline you have studied or how do you know what you know? I feel like am talking to a professor.
 @brendan  @OrThinker I quote a piece of OrThinker's opinion.. "I see this group of perverts as non-people something less than human" ~~ You claimed earlier that OrThinkers posts have been well thought out. I must question your judgment.
 @brendan  @OrThinker No discussion can be worthwhile with someone who considers gay people as inferior scum. A person such as OrThinker can not be reasoned with, they are blinded by hate (though they claim that's not the correct term). But, good luck to your sanity, if you wish to try. Hateful thoughts lead to, inspire, and support hateful actions. I have no problems with people supporting the bakers religious rights, but OrThinker's opinion goes beyond that. Look at the post history to see the vile filth that has been posted, then think again if any discussion with him can be fruitful.
 @Morticae  @OrThinker There is a difference between thinking something, and putting into action.  They have *every* right to think the way they want.
Â
What they don't have, is the right to always put it into practice.  If nothing else they at least seem to be willing to discuss, rather than lecture.  I don't have to respect their belief; I do have to respect their right to believe in it and I will do no less - to do anything else would be hypocritical.
Â
Things change when people decide to be reasonable and discuss things. Â I'll *never* change their mind by disrespecting their belief. Â I have a much better shot at it if I respect their right to have that belief.
Â
Distinguishing between the belief and the right to have the belief are essential, not only to fruitful discussion, but to understanding the legal issues surrounding this.
 @brendan  @OrThinker I think you missed the post OrThinker said about HATE, in which OrThinker states that gay people are sub-human not worthy of being hated. OrThinker deserves no respect and is an abhorrent human being.
 @lee986321  @Sundowner They were Catholic. Doesn't count.
 @TreeWizard  @Sundowner Irish and Scotish were discriminated against...I"rish need not apply" does that sound familiar ?
 @OrThinker I'm surprised you don't see the irony in your own question, "Why should one be able to impose their beliefs on another?"  Is that not what this is about, Aaron Klein imposing his beliefs on the same-sex couple?  They didn't deny him anything. Â
 @Sundowner Well a lot of people would discriminate against a Jew and others mentioned. Not too many discriminate against a white Christian. Why? who knows why. All I know it's not the governments problem when dealing with business.
 @Sundowner  @TreeWizard who is going to discriminate against a Christian?
 @TreeWizard You could insert any 'protected' person/group in your question.  Who is going to discriminate against a Jew or an amputee or someone over age 50 or a person from Iceland or a pregnant woman or a homosexual or anyone else, and why would they?
 @TreeWizard  @Sundowner AHHHH..I get it now....This is about whose rights are clashing with whom's...oh boy.....this is going to get interesting. the business is relevant but the heart of the matter goes beyond that. and people are viewing this through narrow eyes.
Â
But, he is innocent until proven guilty
 @lee986321  @OrThinker  @Sundowner SCOTUS makes decisions, and they've been here before.  And since the public accommodation laws treat *all* religion's views about who to serve equally, it'll triumph.  Christians are not being singled out.  All religions are.
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner so what happens when rights clash with rights.
 @Sundowner Who is going to discriminate against a straight person. Better question, why would they?
 @OrThinker Oregon law is fairly specific:  "sexual orientation".  That includes straight people too.  So if you don't want your rights as a straight man infringed on, you may want to reconsider your position.  If you don't want to follow Oregon law, don't open a business to the public in Oregon.  Pretty simple stuff.  And just because it is YOUR view that gays should not be included for protection doesn't change the law.
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner " It's also illegal to discriminate based on religion and yet the homosexual community in this case wants to discriminate by forcing their will on to a Christian." Nicely said.
 @Sundowner  I treat people as I would have them treat me.  I don't judge people.
Â
okay, this one more before I go to sleep,
we all judge people, every person we coming contact with. We may judge them by the way they appear or speak, or possibly even smell.Â
Â
the question that comes in to this story really comes down to. Should we force another individual to go against his own beliefs? why does the desire to purchase a cake from a given business exceed that particular persons desire not to support same-sex marriage.Â
 In other words, the homosexual community wants to impose their beliefs on to the Christian community. Why should one be able to impose their beliefs on another? if a shop owner doesn't want to do business with someone. What gives the customer the right to demand the compliance with an unfair law.Â
In my view the homosexual community should not be a protected community in any aspect. A homosexual can choose not to act or be homosexual. Unlike being black or female.Â
 It's also illegal to discriminate based on religion and yet the homosexual community in this case wants to discriminate by forcing their will on to a Christian.Â
Â
So in essence what the Oregon law is trying to do is to say, being homosexual allows you to trump the rights of a religious person because they're right to be homosexual exceeds the right to religious freedom.Â
 @lee986321  @OrThinker I cannot tell the difference.Â
 @OrThinker thanks .
 @OrThinker this is the real me when not angered or bullied.
 @OrThinker   I may not agree with you, but I am enjoying an intelligent thinking person to discuss things with.  I would highly encourage you to continue with the quality of posting I've seen so far :)
 @brendan  thanks
 @OrThinker Me too, though I prefer old(er).  Old enough to know that in life, there are few who will make it out alive.  I look at treating people fairly and with respect as being one of my jobs here on earth.  I treat people as I would have them treat me.  I don't judge people.
 @lee986321 being old I'm going to go to sleep now. Good night
 @OrThinker ahh, I see... well my grandmother be fore she past a few years back spoke on such things..Now she was older then dirt...even had..eh food vouchers from the depression? now that was a sight to see...I have learned much from her.
 @lee986321 no special studying just old
 @OrThinker Last sentence of your comment:  "....accepting you"....accepting me for what?  I'm not a factor in any of this.  I've already told you I'm not gay, so who would I bully and why?  BTW, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that when it comes to discrimination, states' laws take precedence over the First Amendment.  Oops.
 @str1ngb3nd3r  @OrThinker Would that the "messiah"  in oval office only asked for 10 percent...
Â
 @TreeWizard If I could get my hands on that 10%...I'd donate it all to the Invisible Children Foundation.
 @TreeWizard "Hey, that 10% can go to charity."
Â
Ten percent of nothing equals nothing. The Church gets nothing. It's the reason why the Vatican wants to continue fight abortion and ban birth control. That's a little bit more believable than your garden variety talking serpent.
 @str1ngb3nd3r  @OrThinker Oh honey god hasn't seen 10 percent since jesus was a pup ...
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner What exactly is the gay agenda ? I'm over 60 years old and have been gay my whole life, never had any agenda, I would be interested in what I've missed out on ... Are you gay ? if not how would you know about any agenda I don't ? Seems kinda weird to me ????
 @TreeWizard  @Sundowner  @OrThinker eh she just dated her self lol
 @Sundowner  @OrThinker "if your mother were objecting to a bookstore refusing to sell "Fifty Shades Of Gray" when did that happen?
 @OrThinker Hahahahahaha!  Now THAT'S funny.  First of all, I don't have a clue what the "gay agenda" is.  I'm a Constitution junkie, plain and simple....including every single amendment to it.  I'm probably old enough to be your mother....if your mother were objecting to a bookstore refusing to sell "Fifty Shades Of Gray", would you be saying she was probably a kinky sadomasochist?  You can say about me anything you like, but this is about the LAW.  We live under the rule of law in the United States.  NOT the law of christianity, whatever mumbo-jumbo that is.
 @str1ngb3nd3r didn't see that or there.
 @TreeWizard The snake or charity?
 @str1ngb3nd3r  @OrThinker what you mean?
 @str1ngb3nd3r  I wish people would just hand me money. Bunch of selfish a**holes.
 @OrThinker A talking snake isn't made up?
 @str1ngb3nd3r there is just no truth to that. Just because you make it up then type it out doesn't give it any credibility Â
 @TreeWizard Charity begins in my pocket!
 @str1ngb3nd3r  @OrThinker Hey, that 10% can go to charity.
 @OrThinker The biggest reason homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the church is because without procreation, there can be no sheep. No sheep = no 10% of wages going to 'god'.
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner well, I am hungry, I am going to mash up some pork and selfish in the ninja.. or may be a slab of beef. best way to make burgers...fresh ground.
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner hmm some straight do fight for gays..but I do hear what you are stating.
 @Sundowner  @OrThinker are you wise then the men and women that view these cases? if so then go and apply for the job. If you think that you know every nook and cranny of the law, then by al means..go..and file application as such
 @Sundowner I think you say you're not gay to be misleading, but you fight too hard for the gay agenda.Â
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner Except SCOTUS has already addressed public accommodation laws already, and the First Amendment lost.  More than once.
 @brendan Is that supposed to be a Good Thing?  That we are now deciding to override our own Constitution?  I fail to see how that is positive.
@OrThinker @brendan I think because the most populated counties in Oregon are liberal,such a ballot measure would fail by a slim margin.Especially when it comes to discrimination against the gay community.Because of the recent gay marriage victories of the last election,I think gay marriage actually might have a chance of passing by a very slim margin in Oregon.Polls have indicated a shift in favor of marriage compared to even five years ago which leads me to think that this time around Portland metro will lead the way.
 @OrThinker The problem is, that only Christians think it's a moral issue (Well, sons of Abraham really; Judaism and Islam have similar views).  When you interact with each other only, you are more than welcome to treat them as such.  When in a non-religious environment (such as a business) you yield your rights to Public Accommodation laws.  it's something you agree to when you get your business license.  In *my* opinion, the time to uphold one's Christian values, is to not get a business license under false intentions in the first place.  One gives implied consent to adhere to the laws pertaining to a business when one obtains a business license.  To do otherwise is dishonest.
Â
(And for reference, the first one was in 1964; we know it as the Civil Rights Act.)
 @brendan I haven't kept up on this issue in terms of what previous decisions have been made but each case has its own questions.Â
This could become a pivotal case in that there really in my view appears to be more support for this bakery then for the gay community.
Â
If the bakery should lose this case, I think we'll see an initiative petition to force a change in Oregon's law. Even though the gay community is growing in number, it still doesn't have what it takes to override a moral question like this in Oregon. So from a Christian point of view this question couldn't have come up at a better time. Â
 @brendan  @OrThinker  @Sundowner http://vnexpress.net/Files/Subject/3B/A0/62/B3/sign3.jpg this might save your life someday.Â
 @OrThinker  @Sundowner So other wise the constitution is the check and balance for laws?
Â
Â
 @TreeWizard  @OrThinker  @Sundowner thanks I just wanted to clarify. so then our court systems is the check and balance :)
 @lee986321  @OrThinker  @Sundowner It is not a checks and balances for laws it is the law.
 @Sundowner the debate is at an Impasse until a judge rules. for now he is innocent untill proven guilty. and there are extenuating circumstances that are not black and white, like Law VS Constitution, all we can do here is assume..here let me write assume in a different way ass/u/me..Corporal Swan at fort Jackson SC taught me that.
 @lee986321  @Sundowner Lee, your opinion doesn't count, you are on welfare..
 @lee986321  @Sundowner He was innocent right up until he admitted guilt, on camera, several times.
@Reeldeal101 @brendan The baker admitted guilt in public and that tape will be played in court. We do not have to wait and see except for what his sentence will be.
 @brendan Perhaps.  But then perhaps not.  We will just have to wait and see.  I will play devils advocate and say NOT.  I don't think they're going to want to get in a battle of religious Constitutional rights vs. sexual preference.  I doubt that the state is going to be willing to open up that can of worms for this.  I may be wrong, but I doubt it.  We shall see. Â
 @brendan  @Sundowner but it is how he worded it that makes me wonder.
 @Sundowner this is why I am thankful for the justice system.while it is slow, we have those with a clearer understanding that what have to judge the case.
Now if you wish, we the US could trash the US Constitution but would that make you any happier? as much as it pains me, I believe that every criminal has the right to a fari hearing and the right to be heard. it is still being investigated..I do not care if I get likes or not. It is the simple truth. this is what makes the US different from other countries..