A couple of christian bakers from Gresham, Oregon, were given a second chance to counter the $135,000 fine of prejudice that forced them out.
“Melissa Sweet Cakes” owners Aaron and Melissa Klein were forced to close their doors in 2013 because of legal concerns arising from a decision not to bake a lesbian couple’s wedding cake.
They continued to bake cakes from home until 2016, when they closed down for good.
But the Kleins have earned renewed hope in the United States following seven years of legal battles. In the light of the 2018 decision of the court in a similar case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The whole story of the Kleins began in January 2013, when a lesbian couple asked them to have a wedding cake.
The Kleins initially refused to cook the cake due to their strong religious convictions of marriage between a man and a woman. Aaron Klein cited a Leviticus verse to justify this conviction at one point.
The lesbian couple filed complaints with Oregon’s Department of Justice and the Bureau of Labor and Industries, according to records released by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry, alleging severe emotional effects such as depression, humiliation, anger and anxiety.
The Associated Press reported that in 2015 an administrative law judge, Alan McCullough, slapped Kleins with $135,000 in penalties over their alleged discrimination.
Would you think the court of appeal should rule in the favor of the Kleins?
The Kleins appealed against them to the Oregon Court of Appeal in 2017.
Nevertheless, the Kleins did not give up and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in June ordered the Oregon Court of Appeal to take a fresh look at the issue.
The appeals court held oral arguments in the case earlier this month. According to PJ Media, the court will determine again whether the Kleins suffered from state violence because of their religious beliefs and whether the protections of their first amendment were violated.
We recently argued in our Sweet Cakes by Melissa Case at the Oregon Court of Appeals on behalf of Aaron and Melissa Klein. This is an exclusive article that shows the courtroom insider photos and an oral argument breakdown. The Kleins ‘ legal staff including attorneys from first liberty institutes and the firm of Boyden Gray & Associates, argued in court this month that the Bureau of Labor and Industries was anti-religious against the Kleins on the grounds of the large fine on the lesbian couple’s int. #SWEETJUST https:/t.co/xXQAZsm9yL— First Liberty Institute (@1stLiberty) January 21, 2020
“Asked for a custom cake to accommodate her same-sex marriage by a woman, Klein told her that he was sorry, but he would have to refuse because of the religious convictions in the family,” reported The Daily Signal.
“After leaving the bakery, her mother came back to talk to Klein about same-sex marriage morality. This is when he quoted a chapter of the Bible to support his religious beliefs, “the press release continued. The Kleins ‘ lawyers presented many cases in which victims of physical violence and months of sexual harassment were paid considerably less money as emotional damage to the lesbian couple. “The woman then committed offense by telling her mother the past, which also happened to misquote Klein.”
Boyden and Gray’s Adam Gustafson also noted that the then Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, who in 2014 ruled that the couple’s civil rights had been violated, had previously given a public declaration stating that his religion was biased against the Kleins.
“Everyone has the right to their own opinions but that doesn’t mean people have the right to discriminate,” Avakian said.
In the masterpiece decision, the Supreme Court had held that Colorado bakery owner Jack Phillips “was entitled under all circumstances of the case to the fair and reasonable consideration of his claims.” The Kleins, said Gustafson, were entitled, by the State, to the same impartial consideration.
Nonetheless, according to Gustafson, the Court of Appeals had no choice but to reverse its previous decision against the Kleins, including the fine, and put a halt to the case in the favor of the Kleins.