web analytics

Don’t Miss an Update! -Subscribe:

Follow AforFaith on Twitter

Categories

vineyard-roll.gif

Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Malware Free Guarantee

SiteLock

Join Our Facebook Network

Visitor Map

Locations of visitors to this page

-Oregon: Bakers Who Refused to Make a Same-Sex Wedding Cake Are Fined and Silenced

by Dr. D ~ July 3rd, 2015

The Christian bakers in Oregon who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding have been fined $135,000 and in addition have been ordered not to talk about it. Here’s the story from the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal:

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

<Read the whole Article>

Response: This cannot be allowed to stand. This outrageous ruling violates the Kein’s constitutional rights to free speech and religious liberty. See the video for Klein’s side in this case.

The fact that the commissioner would rule against the bakers was expected but to the tune of $135,000? This case has already put this Christian couple out of business. Plus Avakian is wrong- it is all about same-sex marriage which wasn’t even legal in Oregon at the time and religious convictions since the bakers had sold items to the same folks in the past. However, it is the gag order that is particularly offensive and egregious.

Commissioner Avakian ruling is tantamount to claiming that Oregon law and sexual orientation overrules the Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Look for similar cases against Christian businesses in the near future but none against Muslims who would react in a similar way since this is all about a PC agenda.

This ruling must be appealed. Unfortunately in the present cultural and legal climate, following the ruling of SCOTUS on same-sex marriage, it is now a battle for competing civil rights and the LGBT agenda seems to be trumping everything else. Regardless the ‘silence order’ should be overturned. In the meantime civil disobedience against the gag order would clearly be justified.               *Top

>>>Don't Miss an Update!**CLICK NOW**Get ANSWERS For The Faith by email<<<

13 Responses to -Oregon: Bakers Who Refused to Make a Same-Sex Wedding Cake Are Fined and Silenced

  1. Mark

    You can’t demand your rights by denying the rights of others, this is the law now. In 10 years when everybody else is making cakes for gay weddings, so will this establishment, this is about culture lag.

  2. Dr. D

    Actually Mark, what it really means is that conservative Christians will no longer be able to be in certain kinds of businesses without compromising their faith. ‘This establishment’ has now gone out of business.

    Most secular folks really do not get it but churches and Christians who believe in the authority of the Bible will not be participating in same-sex marriages 100 years from now. Some liberal so-called churches which reject Biblical teaching will but in the process they deny their origins and reasons to even exist.

    Culture comes and goes and Christianity continues to grow all over the world even in places where it is illegal. The church started in a Roman and Greek culture where homosexuality was accepted and Christians worshiped in secret. Through Christian influence homosexuality went into the closet in Western cultures. So we have come full circle. Maybe Christians will be worshiping in the ‘catacombs’ again? Regardless the Biblical teaching will remain even if it is in the cultural underground and the numbers will increase regardless.

    There were 900,000 Christians in China when Mao’s ‘cultural revolution’ shut down all of the churches and it went underground. Now there are over 100 million and Christianity is growing exponentially even though the Communists are trying to control it. Just one modern example.

  3. Dr. D

    Plus Mark, it is the ‘gag’ order that really has me upset and over-the-top incensed over this case.

  4. mark

    Then let’s bring back slavery, or indebted servitude, where a person is owned and can be beaten, but not to the point of death. Let’s sell our daughters. Let’s slaughter our enemies, every man women and child, well save for the virgins.

  5. Dr. D

    mark, how does that relate to anything I have said here? That was the norm in the world when Christianity was born. It was through Christian influence that all of the above was eventually eliminated in the Western world.

  6. mark

    You just made the case for moral relativism. And that same case will ultimately apply to the current issue of gay rights.

  7. Dr. D

    Exactly the opposite of moral ‘relativism.’ The change took place as Christian thinkers, scholars, and leaders challenged the cultural norm based upon New Testament Biblical teaching and even challenged Western societies that were supposed to be Christian. Everything you just named above was substantially eliminated in the ‘Christian’ West.

    This was not so in the rest of the world and all of the above is still acceptable in Muslim dominated nations and elsewhere.

    Now we live in a post-Christian era and the foundations of Western civilization are being challenged. ‘Moral relativism’ is the product of secular thought not Christian and the result could be chaos and division in the future since in that line of thinking there is really no basis for what might be considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ except the consensus of the majority.

    The future is now open once more to everything you just named above if a culture decides to choose it since in that line of thinking there is no real divine authority to answer to or objective ‘truth’ or standards only what may be chosen by the majority in a society or culture.

  8. mark

    The bible supports slavery. If you say that slavery was found to be not acceptable, and the bible says it is, you are saying that the bible is either wrong or is right for it’s era, but not for the current era. This is the textbook definition of moral relativism. If the bible is wrong on this matter, what other matters could it be wrong on….which means the bible, and the word of god, are not to be taken as absolutes, once again relative to learning, cultural change, philosophical and scientific input, etc. Moral relativism is a good thing…you should be proud of church efforts in ending slavery, albeit there are many non- religious inputs to that end.

  9. Dr. D

    mark, you are entirely wrong. It can be claimed that the Bible accommodated slavery and that is not just a fine point. In reality Biblical teaching in the OT limited it and NT teaching eventually led to its total elimination in the West.

    In ancient times and cultures slavery was a practice in every nation we have record of. In most cultures slaves were doomed to serve a lifetime and were considered property by their owners to do with as they wished. Very much like what happened to Black slaves in early America.

    Biblical teaching established limits to servitude in ancient Israel and Judah. One could be sold into slavery for up to 7 years only to meet a debt. Similar to indentured servants also in early America. One could also choose to become a servant for life but it was a choice. Plus there were regulations on how servants were to be treated and they were still considered to be people with rights and not merely property. ‘Evil’ Kings and leaders did not always follow the Bible rules and the prophets of Israel and Judah proclaimed against them in numerous passages in the OT. Not so in the nations and cultures surrounding Israel that did not follow the Bible.

    In the New Testament era, the church was born in a Roman and Greek culture where nearly half of the population were slaves in some form or another with few if any rights. There were some provisions for Roman slaves to buy themselves out of slavery otherwise they served for life. In that environment, both slave owners and slaves became Christian converts and New Testament teaching counseled the owners to treat their slaves well as brothers in Christ and the slaves to serve their masters as they would Christ giving their best. While worshiping in church there was not suppose to be distinctions between the believers but all were one in Christ Jesus. Paul condemned one church for allowing divisions between believers.

    It was those NT Bible passages Like Galatians 3:28-that taught ‘all’ (slave or free) were equal and one in Christ Jesus and other teachings of Jesus that Christian ministers in Great Britain used to eventually defeat and outlaw slavery. It was compelling in that day since most believed in the authority of the Bible.

    In America Christian ministers used those passages to oppose slavery and show that the current form and practice was inhuman and against Biblical teaching both Old and New Testaments. It was so convincing that those who continued to support slavery began to claim that the Africans were not even human or at least not equal- so the Bible didn’t really apply. Justified by racism and not the Bible.

    But the defeat of slavery in the West happened in response to a clear understanding of Biblical teaching as authorized by the Creator, the exact opposite of Moral relativism.

  10. mark

    To simplify the discussion I would ask you one question, given your statement of what biblical slavery was, would you support it in that form if it were brought back today?
    If the answer is yes, we can discuss further, if no, then you are saying that it is immoral (besides all the legal reasons). If no, you are saying, which you have already stated, that back then, all the cultures had slavery, it was a characteristic of the times, but morally inappropriate for today.

  11. Dr. D

    mark, the Mosaic law limitations to slavery were both religious and civil law for the people of Israel. They do not apply today in our context. It might however be an improvement over what is currently happening to slaves in some Muslim countries and nations where it is still legal today.

    Christian New Testament references became the basis for the understanding in the West that slavery itself was not only inappropriate but immoral.

  12. mark

    Thank you for your candor, I won’t pursue the issue further.

  13. -Oregon: Official Who Bullied Christian Bakers Loses Election | ANSWERS For The Faith

    […] Response: We can never know why the voters turned Avakian away for sure but there are lots of Christians in Oregon and the Sweet Cakes Bakery case made many of them angry. It is really not a stretch to consider that the case was Avakian’s downfall since a Republican has not been elected to a state wide office in 14 years. Here’s a link to our article on the Sweet Cakes Bakery case. […]

Leave a Reply