Liberal Tolerance Extended Only to the Like-Minded

wedding-cakeOregon baker, Aaron Klein, owner of Sweets Cakes by Melissa, recently said he was living in accordance with his religious beliefs when he declined to make a lesbian couple their wedding cake. As you can imagine, so-called liberal tolerance doesn’t extend to Mr. Klein.

I’ve read numerous articles so far and all have discussed the potential violation of Oregon state law vs. U.S. Constitutional law, and on and on and on. I don’t practice that kind of law so I’m not going to express an opinion about the legalities of their actions, but I didn’t read anything that said Mr. Klein refused to serve this couple. They could buy anything he sold; he just wasn’t selling same-sex wedding cakes.

But, I’m more interested in the “people” part of the story.

I first heard about this situation on my local radio station and all four hosts of the show talked about the bakery owner’s “hatred” of gays. Well, I watched the video of the baker, and I heard nothing “hateful” in his speech. Like myself, he doesn’t agree with “gay marriage,” so why is that hateful? I’m not a homophobe and I don’t fear or hate homosexuals. I don’t wish them harm; I don’t think they should be banished from society. I believe in traditional marriage that has been in place for thousands of years and I have not seen, read or heard one argument that has changed my mind. It’s that simple. There’s nothing hateful about it.

Mr. Klein is a Christian and the video of him in his bakery and the store’s décor support that fact. Obviously, the man lives his faith. So, I have to wonder if his was the only bakery in Oregon or did the couple set their sights on him anticipating his refusal and an opportunity for publicity. I have no idea if these two women are activists or not. But I believe that most people wake up in the morning and say, “I wish I didn’t have to go to work today” but there are others who wake up with a purpose and say, “I’ve got a cause to fight for.” I have to question the women’s motivation since gay marriage is not legal in Oregon. So why aren’t they buying their cake in the state where they’re getting married? I don’t get why they would want to buy a cake in Oregon and get married somewhere else? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

I’ve known dozens of brides-to-be in my life and not one of them, while preparing for their weddings, had the time to do anything other than make preparations for their upcoming weddings. Yet, it seems like the fiancée of the person who was refused the cake, had the time to write to the Oregon State officials to complain about Mr. Klein’s refusal to bake the cake for their wedding.

What’s most alarming to me from a “people” perspective is the hatred of Mr. Klein by those that don’t agree with him. Unfortunately, the hypocrisy is as predictable as my being called a racist because I disagree with President Obama’s policies.

Here’s a perfect example. Yelp is a website for people to post their own reviews of restaurants, bakeries, service providers, etc. I’ve posted reviews on Yelp and I’ve also checked the website before trying out a restaurant. I find it very helpful. Just check out some of the one-star comments recently posted on Yelp in response to this story. Clearly, the people posting the one-star comments have never been in the store but are now punishing these owners for their beliefs.

So, as I’ve concluded in numerous articles, liberals will allow people to have their beliefs so long as those beliefs agree with their own.

I actually get this – that’s the only way the liberal agenda has been able to progress as far left as it has. Most people with a “cause” will get the most traction because they’re willing to be the proverbial “squeaky wheel” while the rest of us just want to live our lives. When we do speak up – and not enough of us do – we’re shot down by being called racist, homophobic, hater, sexist, biased, close-minded, old-fashioned, and/or ignorant. Yeah, so much for liberal tolerance.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • heatherGirl

    Liberals have no problem with hate….. as long as they approve of the hate. Liberals who are now so upset that anyone would hate Obama…… are the same liberals who spent eight years hating George Bush.

    They are not agianst hate… as long as you hate who they hate.

  • Gizmo

    Fascism being foisted on duped American “sheeple” who, thanks to MSM & other perps such as “education” believe that the left is “progressive social democracy”.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4KIUH33MV55JS5C4BCHGIAHF4M Murray the KY

    they had no agenda??? i’m wondering just how the baker “knew” it was a gay wedding cake. obviously they told him. and since it “doesn’t matter”, right, gay rights people(?), then why would they do that? as for the state of pot-smoking, suicidal, anti-discriminationists, if they went in there drunk and causing a disturbance then he wouldn’t have the right to say no service??? no, the gist of the article is right on the money. as long as you show agreement we can show tolerance. as for me, i have no intention of going to oregon and spending my money. that’s how i discriminate.

  • Ron F

    The company met their needs. They wanted a wedding cake. The company would not sell one to them and in doing so, as I understand it, violated the Oregon anti-discrimination law.

  • Ron F

    If it is alright for people who support the bakery owner to speculate on the motives of the couple ordering the cake, it is just as legitimate for the supporters of the gay couple to speculate on the motives of the business owner. If his religious views disapporved of interratial marriages, would it be acceptable for him to not sell a wedding cake to a interratial couple. Apparently he violated the laws of Oregon. His business is a place of public accommodation and he discriminated against a gay couple. He would not sell them a wedding cake but he would sell a wedding cake to a heterosexual couple. It doesn’t matter if he would sell the gay couple anything but a wedding cake. He still would not sell them a wedding cake. If two divorced people wanted to get a wedding cake, would he first make sure the divorces were for thebiblical accepable reasons for divorce? I have no problems with laws that state that if you are a business, open to the public, you cannot discriminate based on sexual preferences.

  • OldeDaveNJ

    All of your examples are nonsense. Not that they got into details before the baker turned them away, but there is no substantive difference between a wedding cakes for straight and gay couples. Same ingredients, same designs (probably picked from a book), same pans, same ovens, same processes, same stock items.

    • cmacrider

      So none of you have answered the question …. since when did we decide that a party could demand specific performance of a personal service contract?

      • OldeDaveNJ

        If by party and service you mean places of public accommodation that provide a set of goods/services to the general public, there have been laws precluding denial of service to certain protected classes since the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted.

  • chief98110

    I love the the fact that this gay couple wanted him to bake their
    wedding cake in a state that does not recognize gay marriage, right!
    They had Mr. Klein in their “Liberal” sights because of their hatred for
    his beliefs.
    We, however must be tolerant of their beliefs and
    life styles or risk being called, haters, bigots or homophobes. It is
    easy to pick on us because outside of sports and the weather,
    controversy is something we find aberrant. The other aspect is apathy,
    most of us just don’t care about their issues because we we have our own
    issues: we need to get up go to work and support our families and
    churches. We don’t have the luxury of sitting around and wondering who
    doesn’t like us.
    I challenge this activist couple to go to Iran and fight for Gay rights!

    • OldeDaveNJ

      The fact that Oregon doesn’t recognize gay marriage is irrelevant, both legally and in terms of why they went there. It is perfectly legal, proper, and very common for same-gender couples to have private wedding ceremonies/celebrations even if they live in states that don’t recognize their marriages. It’s also fairly common for them to travel to adjoining states where same-gender civil marriages are performed; this bakery is only 12 miles from the Washington border. As for why they chose that particularly bakery, it is because one of their mothers had previously purchased a wedding cake there for her own wedding and had a good experience. It has nothing to do with them targeting the guy because of his beliefs; that is a complete fabrication. This whole thing came up because the guy violated Oregon state anti-discrimination laws; as far as the law is concerned, this is no different than if he’d refused to sell a wedding cake to somebody because of their race or religion. It’s really a very simple matter of enforcing the law.

      • cmacrider

        Of course it would be too much to expect that in free society the baker should be entitled to refuse his services if he so chooses.

        • chief98110

          The article only says he wouldn’t bake their cake not that he wouldn’t sell his bake goods to them.

          • OldeDaveNJ

            Baking wedding cakes is one of the services he provides to the general public. It falls under the definition of public accommodations.

      • chief98110

        And you know this how?

        • OldeDaveNJ

          Know what how?? I’ve read the Oregon laws pertaining to both same-gender marriage and anti-discrimination by places of public accommodations. I’ve read many news reports about same-gender couples having private wedding celebrations even if they live in states that don’t recognize their marriage … so I know it’s common and having read the laws I know it’s legal. I’ve attended a same-gender wedding in DC (which recognizes such marriages) for a couple that lives in PA (which doesn’t), so know that is done. I know how far the bakery is from the Washington state line because I looked it up on Google maps. I know a family member had previously purchased a wedding cake from the same bakery … I believe it was the mother of one of the women … because it has been widely noted in news reports. As for people fabricating things about the women’s motivations … none have indicated they actually know the women, so what their comments are inherently fabrications. As for the baker violating Oregon’s law … again, I’ve read the law, and I’ve read the baker’s admission of what he did; it’s all pretty straightforward.

  • OldeDaveNJ

    Anti-discrimination laws of this sort have been on the books for nearly 50 years, ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. In that time, private businesses have been precluded from denying service to certain protected classes (e.g, based on race and religion), and generally speaking there have NOT been religious exemptions for business owners. In 2007, the good people of Oregon, acting through their elected representatives, added homosexuals to that list of protected classes in their state. And again, while churches are exempt from such laws, private business owners are not. If private business owners WERE allowed to decide for themselves who they will and will not serve, based on claimed religious beliefs, anti-discrimination laws would have no meaning at all. The notion of religious-freedom rights taking precedence in church practices, and civil rights taking precedence in places of public accommodation, has been a recognized and essential element of anti-discrimination laws in this country for 50 years. This baker is in clear violation of Oregon state law, and the law’s lack of a religious exemption for private businesses is both standard and absolutely necessary.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001161801190 Marco D’Aiutolo

    The LAW doesnt agree with him. Are you suggesting biblical law trumps actual law?? Shall we start stoning people for their sins? Will we make an exemption to murder because it is in the bible and therefore OK?

    Ridiculous. He signed his business and in doing so agreed to Oregon law. He is free to move to a state where he can do this kind of thing.

    Not in Oregon.

  • Vince Ricardo

    “I’m tolerant of your views, as long as they agree with mine,” has been a Leftist mantra forever.

  • Roger Ward

    Being gay often makes for a difficult life; it’s not a life that many of us hetero people would like. Being gay is not a choice! Gay people need and deserve our compassion for living a lifestyle they didn’t choose and can’t change. Of my two best friends in the world, one is gay, and yes, I am sympathetic to gay people. Having said that, I know of nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that says I must accept or endorse the gay lifestyle or, when they have one, a gay agenda. All honorable and decent people owe gay people tolerance and consideration …. but that does not say we must respect or accept a gay agenda that runs counter to our own views. Gays have the right to live their lives free of ill feeling or contempt …. and we have the right to live our lives without being considered homophobes when we object to same-sex marriage or a (possible) gay agenda.

    • Ron F

      Roger, I agree with you but I am not sure wanting to buy a wedding cake is promoting the gay agenda and I do not think selling a wedding cake to the couple means the bakery owner is agreeing with a gay agenda.

      • Roger Ward

        Ron F: (1) The fact that a gay couple wishes to buy a wedding cake in a state other than where their “marriage” is going to take place, and (2) the fact that they took the time to complain to state officials about their inability to do so, suggests pretty clearly that they had an agenda. The baker obviously thought so too and did not wish to compromise his religious priniciples by cooperating with their artificially created agenda. In the real world, a couple about to marry have too many other things to do and to think about so, while I sympathize with gays in general, it appears to me that they wished to create a media circus out of what should have been a non-event.(Or maybe they ascribed too carefully to Marie Antoinette’s dictum: “Let them eat cake.”)

        • Ron F

          Roger, the only agenda that I know the had was to buy a wedding cake. I am not sure complaining to state officials about being treated differently than heterosexual couples shows that they had an agenda. In addition, as I understand it the bakery was 10 miles from the Washington border. Having been on that border a number of times, it is not unusual for people to cross the border for commercial transactions. We object to when the left questions our motives. By the same token, I will not question the couples’ motives. Have they filed a lawsuit or have they just complained to state officials? In any event, it seems the simple question is did the bakery owner break state law by treating the couple differentlay?

          • Roger Ward

            It is entirely possible that the baker may have broken a state law. If so, add that law to the list of many that should be repealed …. but that’s not my point. It is perfectly clear to me that the couple had an agenda: why else would they take a non-event like buying a cake and turn this non-event into a cause celebre by complaining that the baker treated them differently because of their sexual orientation? It starts with a complaint, then it becomes a lawsuit, then the ACLU comes in, then some left-wing legislator calls for yet another law, then whomever disagrees with the law is called a hater, and so on ad infinitum. This certainly sounds like an agenda to me and not just the no-cake non event that it should be. Case closed!

  • Uncle Dave

    In the liberal mind, religious equals hatred; whether it be gays, abortion (you must just hate women to make them suffer with their self-administered pregnancy) , or family (why don’t you just let the kids do as they please., run amuck) or even religion its self (you must hate atheists).