Couple that refused to bake wedding cake for gay couple talks to Glenn

April 30, 2015

Writer

TheBlaze reported Tuesday on the Oregon bakers who were handed a $135,000 fine for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Christian owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, claim the hefty fine could put them out on the street. They joined Glenn on radio Thursday to discuss their plight and how the Christian community is rallying to their aid.

Below is a rush transcript of this interview

You're not going to recognize your country. You will not have religious rights soon. The people that can tell this first-hand are Aaron and Melissa Klein. They had a bakery in Oregon called Sweet Cakes by Melissa. A lesbian couple came in and wanted them to make a cake for them. They said no because of their religious beliefs. It went to court. The court just ordered a fine of $135,000 for not baking this cake. They have lost the bakery, they have shut it down, and now they have to pay $135,000 fine because the lesbian couple, Rachel and Laurel, said that they had experienced all kinds of physical, emotional and --

PAT: 88 symptoms now, because --

GLENN: It's actually 90. Excessive sleep, they felt mentally raped, acute loss of confidence, doubt, dirty, shameful, they felt they had high blood pressure, impaired digestion, loss of appetite, migraine headache, pale and sick at home, shocked, stunned, weight gain, worry --

PAT: There's nothing you can do after being denied a cake other than start smoking again.

GLENN: True. I would like to get Aaron and Melissa on the phone and find out what they ever received. I'm sure they didn't have any worry, uncertainty, shock, weight gain, acute loss of confidence, doubt.

PAT: Are you guys smoking again?

GLENN: Hi, guys. How are you?

MELISSA: Good. How are you?

AARON: Definitely not a smoker.

GLENN: I don't think I would describe myself as good, if I were you

two. And you two are amazing people. You really are.

MELISSA: Oh, well you're amazing too, Glenn.

GLENN: That's what I mean. That's what I mean. You guys -- because Pat said he would say -- Early on the show today --

PAT: I put it like this. I would tell them not a dime are you going to get from me. Not a dime.

GLENN: He would not be as Christ-like, and you guys have not said anything bad about this couple. There's no hatred coming from you on this couple and that's got to be hard.

MELISSA: I mean, honestly, we don't feel any hate or frustration or upset-ness towards them at all. We really don't.

PAT: Even after all this?

AARON: I've got to be honest. The thing is that yes, one of the girls filed a complaint initially with the Department of Justice, which is the wrong venue for this, but they filed the complaint, got the ball rolling, but the state picked it up from here and the state really is the accusatory agency here, so you go this isn't the girls doing this to me. It is my own government doing it to me.

PAT: How do you feel about the list of 90 symptoms they have because you didn't bake them a cake?

GLENN: And how many did you have, of the 90?

MELISSA: Yeah, I definitely -- I don't even -- to be honest, I don't know what to say. We definitely have experienced a lot in this. It's been kind of tough on us. We have five kids, and there's been a lot of stress through this. There's -- it has definitely not been easy.

PAT: Plus, you're not making what you were when you had the bakery, right, that you guys -- you are making about half?

MELISSA: Our income has dropped drastically. I would say we probably are about, probably about half of each month, what we were making before. We are at about half of that now.

GLENN: What have you pulled out of this? If you had to do it all over again and those two walks into your bakery, what would you say today?

AARON: Number one, I wouldn't -- it was one and their mother, but the situation has not changed. God's word still defines marriage as what it defines it as. The hard part is this was never intended to hurt anybody. This was never intended to go after anybody based on sexual orientation. This strictly had to do with my faith, strictly had to do with my ability as a private individual, to adhere to my faith in the workplace. It comes down to -- I believe every American should be able to live and work by their faith.

GLENN: We have all believed that in the past, but I want to play something that Hillary Clinton said this weekend. I don't know if you have heard. I want you to listen to this and tell me what you think?

HILLARY CLINTON: Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will; and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

PAT: So she is saying deep-seated religious beliefs, like the one you guys are talking about right now, have to be changed?

GLENN: How do you feel about that?

AARON: That would be reason 1,472 why I wouldn't vote for her, but, you know, that is the mind-set in the government, that is what is going on here. We're seeing almost a cleanseing of Christian faith. I mean, I wouldn't be in this situation -- at least I don't believe I would be in this situation if I was a follower of Islam.

GLENN: I think -- it wasn't Steven Crowder that went into an Islamic bakery and said he wanted a cake made for him for him and his --

STU: And --

GLENN: They said no, we won't do it. Nobody said a word about it.

PAT: With this judgment against you, this $135,000, what are you doing with that? Appealing that? Certainly --

AARON: Well, this is coming from administrative law judge. This guy doesn't hold a law degree nor is on the Oregon State Bar.

PAT: So it is not official?

AARON: He makes a recommendation to the Commission of Bureau and Labor try. And the commissioner, he will give the final say on what happens here. I can tell you, from looking back at his past rulings, we could probably look at an increase on this.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Oh, my gosh. What will you do, if it comes down like that?

AARON: Well, I'm going to appeal it. I'm definitely not going to appeal it. Not something I could come close to affording. The agenda has pushed us out of business, which is one thing, but now that's not good enough. The state still says, well, your personal assets are on the table. Now we are talking we want your house, we'll put you on the street, we want to take the food away from your kids, because that's reasonable too, and really, what this comes down to is almost like to see us destitute and begging on the street corner. That's what it would appear to be. I would like the commissioner to hear that. If that's what he wants, then go ahead and let this come down. If that's not what he wants, if he wants to protect the religious freedom in the state of Oregon, he ought to think differently about this case.

GLENN: So you put a Go Fund Me page together, but another bakery actually got them to take it down, right?

MELISSA: We didn't set up a Go Fund Me, but a gentleman here in Portland, another business owner, he called our lawyers, and wanted to set up the fund for us, and he asked our lawyers, should we do that? Is it okay? They said yeah, that's fine. I mean, I guess it was -- I think up for about eight hours, and it was just amazing to just see

the amount of support that came in so quickly. We were just -- I can't even like thank the people. I wish I could thank everybody individually, but it just -- the outpour was amazing. It got -- we discovered it got taken down. We didn't hear, though, until just recently, we saw in the papers that evidently, another business owner here in Portland was kind of gloating on their Facebook page that they got it taken down.

GLENN: So Franklin Graham stepped in. On his web site, samaritanspurse.org, he set up a donation page for you.

MELISSA: Yeah. We actually -- the next morning after all that happened, we woke up and we saw -- I can't remember where I saw it, online or where I saw it, but I saw he put on his Samaritan's Purse page, to help us out. I just was -- I can't even describe the feelings that I'm feeling with all of that.

PAT: This is a more egregious situation than the Memories Pizza thing. In just a couple of days, their Go Fund Me site went crazy. So hopefully --

GLENN: Hopefully people go to samaritanspurse.org and donate to Melissa and Aaron Klein. Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Look there are

that. We met you and you are so nice and so kind, and so gentle, so loving and so Christ-like I have not heard an angry word from you. I just pray that you stay close to the Lord and don't lose hope or don't -- you call us, you start to lose hope, you have a bad day, feel free to call us, please. I mean that sincerely.

MELISSA: Aw, thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: If you were haters, that's one thing, but you're not.

MELISSA: No. That's for sure.

GLENN: Right. So I just wish you the best and we'll talk again. God

bless you both.

MELISSA: You too.

PAT: Good luck.

Featured image via Flickr

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep