Bakery owner fined $135,000 for refusing to bake wedding cake for same-sex couple shares his story

July 08, 2015

WRITER

Remember the Oregon couple that was fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding? It became one of many iconic stories in the past year that showed the progressive war on religious freedom taking place in America. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide, many fear these attacks on freedom of conscience will only escalate. Stu and Pat talked to Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the bakery, on radio this morning about the latest on this story.

LISTEN:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

PAT: Pat and Stu in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 877-727-BECK. Well, even before the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, we were already having problems with religious freedom. And we were having the -- there was, of course, the wedding cake situation. There was the photographer situation. Who were forced into participating into these weddings. Well, Aaron Klein and Mellissa, his wife, would not participate in a same-sex marriage by baking the cake. Now, they served gay people all the time, but I don't know how many came in. But they had served them. They didn't have a policy of, oh, my gosh, if you're a homosexual, you may not enter our store.

That was not the case.

STU: No. And there is -- there would be a law against that, I think, in Oregon. Which is the law they came after the bakery for. But this is not what they did. They didn't say no gays can come into our store. That's not what happened.

PAT: We have Aaron on the phone with us, joining us after this 135,000-dollar fine was upheld and levied against these guys. It's just one of the most incredible stories that I think I've seen in my lifetime. And, Aaron, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu, hi.

AARON: Thank you for having me back.

PAT: So, Aaron, you did serve gay clients. Right? Homosexuals came into your store as far as you know, and you sold them cakes, you sold them stuff?

AARON: Well, quite honestly, I wouldn't know you're a homosexual unless you told me. I'm sure we served many people that were homosexuals. That was never a question to ask.

PAT: Yeah, you didn't have a policy of, hey, I would like a Danish and I would like -- I'd like a birthday cake. And then you wouldn't say, well, excuse me.

STU: Not a gay birthday.

PAT: Are you homosexual? You wouldn't say that.

AARON: No.

STU: Okay. Good.

PAT: All right.

STU: That's positive. And I think -- if you -- there are sometimes couples come in. They are amorous. Gay or straight. If a gay couple came into the store holding hands --

PAT: So they're clearly a couple.

STU: Would you have a problem selling them a cupcake out of your bin there?

AARON: No. See, there's where the oddity comes in of the situation. That's exactly what happened with these exact two girls in the past. And we had no problem serving them.

PAT: That's what I thought. Because I thought you knew you had serviced even the same couple before with your products.

AARON: Yeah. Absolutely.

(laughter)

STU: That would have been an interesting addendum to the story.

PAT: I didn't put that as well as I intended. Maybe we just move on.

STU: So 135,000-dollar fine. And you know this is a situation where you guys wanted to, you know -- look, you didn't want to be part of this ceremony. And we in this country over a long period of time have made it a nation in which you can spend your time how you please. If it's not violating someone else's freedom and it's not violating the law, you get to do what you please. Now, I thought for sure, baking and decorating cakes was included in that, but they're telling you it's not.

AARON: Well, they're telling me as a business you surrender your constitutional freedoms. Which, unfortunately, the Supreme Court said that's not the case with Hobby Lobby. Now, in this situation, obviously we were not looking to hurt anybody. We weren't looking to discriminate as the government has put this. But we were looking to live out our faith in our daily lives. And Mr. Avakian has decided that that does not coincide with being in business apparently. So now we're dealing with the situation where an exorbitant amount of damages have been awarded to somebody for simply being told I'm sorry I can't do this. In fact, right now, me speaking to you about this, I'm violating the cease and desist that he has placed on me, a private citizen, in this country in the effect of a gag order. I'm not supposed to tell you what happened because that's in violation of his order.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: Because that's kind of really where the case came down. It almost, in a way, the fine wasn't for what you did with the cake, it was the fact that you had the audacity to go on media sources and actually talk about your constitutional rights being taken away.

AARON: Well, no. The final order says that all this $135,000 is specifically for the act of saying, I'm sorry, I can't do your cake.

STU: Okay.

AARON: However, he did find me guilty of advertising. And, of course, advertising was, hey, that I'm going to stand firm. Oh, my gosh. That I'm going to stand firm. Like, how dare I?

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: So what was the penalty for your guilt in the world of advertising?

AARON: He said there was no additional fines because it couldn't be proven that the girl suffered anything from it. Now, you have to understand that the judge in this situation, this administrative law judge said that everything I said was First Amendment protected speech. The commissioner decided that, no, it was not. That he could throw the book at me for it.

PAT: Aaron, do you have $135,000 to pay them?

AARON: I did not. The American people have spoken loud and clear. We are looking at some crowd funding that went on. And we actually -- I believe at this point, we may actually have the funds to do that. However, should this money have to go for this purpose? I don't think so. We're going to continue to fight this.

PAT: Good. Good.

STU: Look, I have no faith in the Supreme Court at all at this point. But this needs to go to the Supreme Court. We need to be able to decide whether people are able to do -- whether they're able to bake cakes or not at their own pace.

PAT: Didn't the ruling kind of allude to the fact that you should be able to do these things? That you should -- your religious sensibilities have to be taken into account? Isn't that --

AARON: I thought that was in Kennedy's ruling, as far as I was concerned. That's what Kelly Shackelford, from Liberty Institute said.

PAT: Right. He said that on our show. Was that the one part of that ruling that he was sort of uplifted by was the fact that they did protect religious liberty, supposedly. So you should be in the clear as far as I can tell. I don't even know how they're doing this in Oregon. This is unbelievable. But just to review, you guys -- you guys lost the bakery, right?

AARON: Yeah. The brick-and-mortar has been shut down.

PAT: Yeah. And you're doing something else now that doesn't pay as well. And you'd rather be doing the bakery?

AARON: Well, that's the American dream is running your -- I know Mellissa would rather do the bakery. She enjoyed doing wedding cakes immensely. She enjoyed, you know, just meeting people. I don't think there was a person that walked out of that shop that wasn't her best friend when it was all said and done. But, you know, we want to live the American dream. We want to have the freedom to do that.

The State of Oregon is telling us, you don't have that freedom, as long as I'm in power. That's what this guy is doing. He's ruling out thought and speech and applying his bias to it. And, quite honestly, I believe there's actually federal penal code that goes against what he's done here. We'll look into that. We'll appeal this to an appellate court. We're going to continue to fight this. As I said before, this man will not tell me that I can't speak. He will not tell me that I can't live out my faith. I will continue to fight with every breath I have in me, and he better be aware of that.

STU: That is great. And I don't understand how anyone can think that you don't have that right. I mean, it's your right to speech. It's your right to believe in something. It's a constitutionally protected thing. And it's so clear that -- that, you know -- that freedom of religion is so prominent and such a foundational belief in this country. The idea that you would have to do something that you would disagree with, I just -- I can't -- I can't imagine the Supreme Court would hold that up. Though, at this point, they do a lot of things I can't imagine, including write new words into bills.

PAT: Yeah. Also, Aaron, we heard from our affiliate station in Houston, that there might be some biases on the part of this Avakian. If you're talking about his son and his Facebook postings. Is there any truth to that? Do you know anything about that?

AARON: From what I found out -- I was actually talking on the Michael Berry Show, and what I found out was that, yeah, he's got a son who identifies as homosexual. Again, this is not a situation where the bias he has is something that is unconstitutional. It's not something that is an issue or should be --

PAT: He probably should have recused himself from this.

AARON: Yeah. The office that he holds makes him a judge, jury, and executioner. And you can't have that in any office because everybody has a bias. I mean, you've got a bias. I've got a bias. Just, the office that he holds allows too much leeway for someone to implement that bias.

STU: Now, Aaron, obviously you can tell by this interview that we are on your side and back you on this. But let me give you one sort of, quote, unquote, tough question here.

AARON: All right.

STU: I absolutely back you 100 percent on your right to say I don't want to participate in the ceremony. You should not have to do it. However, have you considered whether you should or not? From the perspective of, as a person who bakes a cake, you probably bake cakes for parties all the time where there's things that you don't agree with that go on. And this particular ceremony, if a gay couple comes in and they -- they get -- they're already married, and they have a party -- you would certainly, I would think, give them the cake then.

The ceremony where the cake is utilized is after they're already married. It's not like they need the cake to get hitched. Have you thought about whether you should have just made the cake? Again, I agree with your right to say no to it. But do you think that maybe you should have just done it?

AARON: No. I still have the same mind-set. The difference is, a birthday. You can celebrate a birthday. There's nothing inherently wrong with a birthday. You can celebrate the birth of a child. A baby shower. You can celebrate all sorts of different things. But once you start to say, let's celebrate something that the Bible calls sin. And then you say, well, I don't want to be a part of that. You can't use your time, your effort, your artistic ability, and help somebody celebrate something that the Bible says is wrong. I don't believe that's right. And being a man of faith and the scripture telling me that we're not supposed to take part in another man's sin. I think that would be inherently wrong to help celebrate something that the Bible calls sinful.

PAT: So if four couple -- you wouldn't bake that either.

AARON: I wouldn't do that either. The Bible says adultery is wrong.

STU: This is just getting fun. So let me ask you another one. We're just playing bakery roulette here. How about this one. A man comes in. Orders your biggest cake. And he says, you know what, sir, I'm going to eat all of this cake. In fact, I'm going to be a glutton today. Would you bake him the cake?

AARON: Would I bake a cake for somebody that wants to do gluttony?

STU: Yes.

AARON: You know, I -- you have to find where overeating is in the Bible. I mean, if that's the case, every American -- it's a horrible, horrible holiday.

PAT: Yes. And we would have to put Jeffy in prison.

STU: That's a great point.

Aaron, I think -- I'm glad. Because this is an important thing. And I'm glad that someone like you is the face of this right now. Because you're not hateful. You're not saying you don't like people. You're not saying you won't serve people. You're saying you have one specific religious choice that you want to make. And should you be able to do that. And I think it's a really interesting question. I'm glad -- you've been doing this for a while. There's no crazy Facebook posts of you being hateful. There's no pictures of you burning things on the lawns of gay people. You're -- you seem -- at least you come across as a really good person who has a religious choice that you may or may not agree with, but certainly should have the opportunity to exercise it. So I'm happy about that.

AARON: I'm just the average American. I just want to, like I said, live out the American dream. I want to be able to walk in my faith. Live out the American dream. And the Constitution guarantees everybody that right. I mean, if you want to be Buddhist, it allows you to be Buddhist. It doesn't punish you for doing it.

PAT: And I love your resolve. I love the fact that you're not rolling over and playing dead for this. That's fantastic. Thanks for doing that.

AARON: I think that every Christian better get ready for it. Because with the Supreme Court ruling, we're going to have issues.

PAT: Oh, absolutely. So let me ask you this, is the crowd-funding still going on? Can people still help out if they want?

AARON: Yeah, continue to give. Still up and rolling. Like I said, I think we've met our mark at this point. Like I said, I don't know what the future holds. I might end up with extra charges against me for just talking to you right now.

STU: All right. And where do they go to help out?

AARON: There's -- on the Sweet Cakes Facebook page, there's a donation button. Also, the website is continuetogive/helpsweetcakes is what it is.

PAT: All right.

STU: Go to the Sweet Cakes Facebook page is probably the easiest way to go.

PAT: Yeah, thanks a lot, Aaron. We appreciate it. Good luck.

AARON: Not a problem. Not a problem.

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At midnight on September 30th, dockworkers across the East Coast went on strike, effectively cutting the country's import and export capabilities in half.

Don't go out and panic buy a pallet of toilet paper and instant ramen just yet. It's going to take some time for the full effects of the strike to be felt and hopefully, the strike will be good and over by then. But there are no guarantees, and this election cycle could get significantly more insane as we draw near to the election. And even if the strike is settled quickly, it shows growing cracks in our infrastructure and industrial capacity that needs to be addressed if America wants to maintain its global dominance.

Here is everything you need to know about the dockworker strike:

What do the dockworkers want?

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

As with most strikes, pay is the driving factor behind this situation the country now finds itself in. The longshoremen want more pay, and with rising inflation who can blame them? After all, working the docks is hard and dangerous business, and fair compensation only seems... fair. But when you compare the wage of a dockworker, which is around $100,000 to $200,00 a year to the average income in America of $56,000, suddenly they seem significantly less sympathetic.

How much money are they asking for? For most Americans, a three percent raise is considered high, but the unions are asking up to 15 percent, depending on location. On top of that, they are asking for a 77 percent raise over the next six years. The West Coast dock workers recently made off with a 36 percent raise and were considered lucky. These increases in costs are just going to be transferred to the end consumer, and we'll likely see a jump in prices if these terms are accepted.

The other major ticket item is protection against automation. Autonomous ports are quickly becoming a reality, with major ports in China that are capable of handling vast amounts of cargo being run by a single office, not an army of dock workers. Naturally, the longshoremen are concerned that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by machines that can work harder, longer, for cheaper, and without risk of injury.

How will it affect Americans?

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Don't panic yet!

It is going to take some time for consumers to feel the effects of the strike and it is possible that a resolution could happen at any time.

Week one should be pretty much business as usual. It might be a good idea to stock up on fruit and other perishables, but there is no need to go COVID-lockdown-crazy yet.

Week two is when you'll first start feeling the pinch. Fresh fruits and veggies will become scarce, along with other imported goods like shoes, toys, and TVs. Prices will start to creep up as the shelves will start to look a little sparse. The supply of tools, lumber, and other hardware materials will also begin to dry up.

By week three, the cracks in the system will really start to show. Entire industries will begin to slow down, or even stop. Factory workers will get furloughed and sent home without pay. Stores will have to ration items, prices will be sky-high, and online orders will come to a standstill. At this point, the strike will have escalated into a full-blown crisis, and even if it was resolved immediately, it would still take weeks to restore everything to working order.

At the four-week mark, the situation will have developed into a national security crisis, and as Glenn describes, a poly-crisis. Small business will be closing their doors, entire brands will be out of stock, and everything that remains will be so expensive it is unaffordable. By this point, the holiday season will be drawing near and there will be a rush on any sort of gift or decor items left. At this point, irreparable damage to our economy will have occurred and it will be months if not years before it can be mended.

While that sounds bleak, with the election just around the corner, it seems unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration will let it get that bad. That being said, their administration has not been characterized by good decision-making and reasonable policy, so there are no guarantees.

What can be done?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The big question is "Why hasn't Biden already done something?"

President Biden, who ran on the image of a blue-collar, union-worker, has been uncharacteristically absent from the issue. Despite his earlier involvement in a train strike, Biden has declared that involvement in union fights is not a presidential issue unless it getsreally bad.

So where's the line? At what point will he step in? He has to understand that an economic crisis right before the election will reflect poorly on Kamala.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Join Glenntonight for Vice Presidential debate coverage you do not want to miss!

Tonight is the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, and it will be hosted by CBS News. But don't be reliant on CBS News or any other mainstream media channel for their biased coverage. Join the BlazeTV live stream tonight to get the uncensored truth alongside top-quality commentary from Glenn and the rest of the world-class panel.

Glenn is joined by Megyn Kelly, Liz Wheeler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Jill Savage, Dave Landau, and more to cover the CBS News Vice Presidential Debate. Blaze Media subscribers gain access to live chat with the fantastic panel of hosts! If you subscribe today by visiting BlazeTV.com/debate you will get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount ever offered, so take advantage NOW!

See you TONIGHT at 8 PM ET for an event you do NOT want to miss it!

POLL: Can the VP debate affect the election?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor, Dia Dipasupil / Staff | Getty Images

The first (and likely only) Vice President debate will be held on CBS News on Tuesday, October 1st.

The debate takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will be the first time we see J.D. Vance and Tim Walz face off in person. Typically, the VP debate is little more than a formality, and rarely does it affect the election in any significant way. But this is no ordinary election. The stakes are higher than they have been in years, and Trump and Harris are still in a razor-thin race, according to the polls. Both Vance and Walz are relative newcomers to the national stage and still have room to make an impression on the American people, and with the race as tight as it is, that might make all the difference.

So what do you think? Can this VP debate make an impact on the election? Are you going to tune in? And what sort of questions and issues need to be brought up? Let us know in the poll below:

Will this VP debate be important in the overall election?

Are you going to watch the VP debate?

Should the debaters be asked about the Biden-Harris administration's failing economy?

Should the debaters be asked about climate change and energy policy?

Should the debaters be asked about the rise of globalism?

Five things that PROVE Kamala's plan for climate authoritarianism

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

If you wanted to cripple America for years, what would be the best way to go about it?

If your mind immediately went to the power grid, you think a lot like Glenn. For decades the secret to America's growth and prosperity has been its abundant and relatively cheap energy. Electricity has been so cheap for so long that many Americans take it for granted, though raising prices has put it back on many people's radars.

There are forces on the Left, including Kamala Harris, who is working to be "unburdened by what has been," and plunge America into a dystopian future where only the elite can afford "luxuries" like A/C and dishwashers. While Kamala has either remained silent or been dismissive of her radical climate policies, here are things that prove that Kamala has disastrous plans for our energy future:

Kamala endorsed the Green New Deal

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, then-Senator Harris was proud to co-sponsor the Green New Deal. This was, by all metrics, the most authoritarian legislation in U.S. history. It was so over the top, cartoonishly evil, that it hardly seemed real. It aimed to ban all coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power, and dismantle and rebuild every aspect of our lives, from what we eat to how we travel (for the worse). It also aimed to provide economic security to those "unwilling to work," aka, money for nothing.

Had several failed climate actions

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

After the Green New Deal was defeated, Kamala tried several times to pass something similar. First was the "Comprehensive Climate Plan" which she introduced during her 2019 presidential bid. This plan had a staggering 10 TRILLION DOLLAR price tag, which is double the entire U.S. federal budget and aimed at exceeding the Paris Agreement climate goals.

In 2020, she introduced the Climate Equity Act, which would have created another government office called the "Climate and Environmental Equity Office.” This office would review all congressional bills and judge their potential impact on "communities that have experienced environmental injustice or are vulnerable to climate injustice.” As if that wasn't overreaching enough, it would also require every government agency to publish a biannual "climate and environmental justice accountability agenda.”

Finally, she pushed the “Environmental Justice for All Act,” which is exactly what it says on the tin. It boils down to a bunch of new rules and advisory bodies that would give cash handouts to "environmental justice communities." Fortunately, just like the other two this one never saw the light of day.

Inflation reduction act

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The crowning jewel of Kamala's "historic" vice presidency was when she cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Green New Deal Jr, otherwise known as the Inflation Reduction Act. While it was obvious from the beginning that the Inflation Reduction Act had nothing to do with inflation, and was just a climate change bill in disguise, Biden recently confirmed this to all the nay-sayers. Kamala confirmed that this was more than just another Biden gaffe when she admitted that it is "the single largest climate investment in American history.”

So what fruits does this wonderful piece of legislation have to offer? 60 out of the promised 2,000+ EV school buses. It is unclear if the delay is caused by schools backing out of the program due to the technological limitations of the busses or the outrageous cost- more than three times that of a traditional bus. Kamala's vision of the future sure is bright.

Skyrocketing home prices

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

If the Inflation Reduction Act is the greatest climate bill ever, then we have a pretty good idea of how it affects the average American: poorly. Over the past year, U.S. electricity prices have risen 3.6 percent, which outpaces inflation. Current estimates suggest the average American is paying 5,000 dollars a year more on utilities than they were before Biden and Kamala took office. Not to mention all the new green mandates enforced on new homes, which on average is adding 31,000 dollars to the price of homes.

Judging by the climate-leading state of California, this is pretty standard. Californians' electricity bill has gone up over three times faster than the rest of the nation since 2008 and Californians collectively owe more than 2 billion dollars in unpaid utility bills. Not to mention the havoc green energy is playing on the electric grid.

Ban fracking

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Over the last fifteen years, the U.S. has reduced our emissions more than any other nation, but this was accomplished despite the authoritarian legislation, not because of it. Natural free-market developments have encouraged a transition from coal to natural gas, largely due to fracking, which has dramatically increased the availability of the fuel. A whopping 43 percent of American electricity is generated by natural gas, meaning its price has a huge impact on the cost of energy. So naturally the Biden-Harris administration has cracked down on natural gas and oil exploration, and in 2019 Kamala stated that she favored banning fracking. She has since walked back that statement, but seeing how hostile the administration has been towards fracking it's almost certain that a Kamala presidency would spell doom for natural gas.

Glenn's Show Prep