• Skip to main content
Daily Citizen
  • Subscribe
  • Categories
    • Culture
    • Life
    • Religious Freedom
    • Sexuality
  • Parenting Resources
    • LGBT Pride
    • Homosexuality
    • Sexuality/Marriage
    • Transgender
  • About
    • Contributors
    • Contact
  • Donate

supreme court

Oct 24 2018

Another Christian-Owned Bakery Appeals to the Supreme Court

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Christian owners of a Gresham, Oregon bakery called Sweetcakes by Melissa, politely turned down a request from a lesbian couple in 2013 to create a custom wedding cake for their upcoming wedding celebration. The Kleins explained to one of the lesbian women and her mother that the Kleins’ faith prevented them from creating an artistic expression symbolizing marriage for a same-sex wedding, after which the mother and daughter left. The mother returned shortly thereafter and engaged the Kleins in a further conversation as to why their religious faith prevented them from creating such a cake. At that point Aaron Klein shared a Scripture verse with the mother from Leviticus 18:22, which states: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

The mother then left the shop and inaccurately communicated to her daughter that Aaron had called her “an abomination.” Four days later, the same-sex couple found another baker who agreed to make the custom cake they desired. The couple then filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) charging the Kleins with discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation, a purported violation of the state’s public accommodations laws. BOLI found against the Kleins and imposed damages of $135,000 for the alleged emotional pain suffered by the lesbian couple. The Kleins appealed BOLI’s decision all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court, to no avail. The Kleins have now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Oregon courts, arguing that Oregon has violated their freedom of speech and religion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If and when the Court formally accepts the Kleins’ appeal, a hearing will be set, and a written decision will follow. As this article went to press, the Court had not indicated whether it will indeed accept the case.

In addition to dealing with endless legal proceedings, the Kleins were vandalized and harassed out of business by those opposed to the religious stand that they took.

If this all sounds like déjà vu because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in June, 2018 in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involving a Christian baker from Lakewood, Colorado, who declined to bake a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple, you’d be correct, up to a point.

If you recall, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, won his case because the Supreme Court held that Colorado had violated his freedom of religion when it did two separate things: (1) the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated his religious claims with hostility, at one point comparing his religious claim to the statements historically attributed to perpetrators of the Holocaust and former slave-owners to justify their abhorrent actions, and; (2) the Commission treated other bakers differently than Jack by upholding the rights of several shops that turned away a customer who wanted biblical verses about homosexuality written on a cake. Importantly, the Supreme Court did not address the free speech issue in Masterpiece.

In the Kleins’ case, there are indications of the state’s anti-religious hostility, but no record of differential treatment of the Kleins vis a vis other bakers. However, the Kleins’ arguments and supporting facts pick up where Jack Phillips’ case left off, i.e., they invoke free speech principles that the Masterpiece court did not address. There were “uncertainties” in the factual record, according to Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, over whether Phillips’ wedding cakes were all “custom” cakes which, the justice noted, “might make a difference” to the outcome of his free speech claims.

But the Kleins and their legal team from First Liberty Institute are optimistic that the Kleins’ case could allow the Supreme Court to expand upon its Masterpiece decision and draw broad Constitutional lines that favor the free speech rights of artists in general.

The official case title for the Kleins’ appeal is Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

 

*Photo by First Liberty

Written by Bruce Hausknecht · Categorized: Religious Freedom · Tagged: bakery, supreme court, sweet cakes

Jun 26 2018

Why You Should Care About NIFLA v. Becerra at the U.S. Supreme Court

UPDATE

In a close 5-4 decision issued on June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the California state law aimed directly at pro-life pregnancy care centers who oppose abortion and offer women with unplanned pregnancies a life-giving alternative. The law, known as the Reproductive FACT Act, required the pro-life centers, which provide a variety of services such as ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, and counseling, to advertise government-funded free and low-cost abortions in their centers.

See Focus on the Family President Jim Daly’s video response to the ruling.

What’s the case about?

No person should be compelled by government to speak a message contrary to their beliefs. Yet that is exactly what the California legislature attempted here. Although the government had numerous ways to get its message out to the public, they chose the one avenue that would inflict the heaviest burden on people and organizations with a religious and/or moral belief against abortion.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court stood firm in a classic defense of free speech. To quote Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion:

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

Who are the parties?

“NIFLA” stands for National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. It is a national non-profit organization comprised of 1430 pro-life pregnancy resource centers across the country (110 in California that are subject to the FACT Act). These centers provide licensed medical services such as ultrasound and urine pregnancy testing, and/or unlicensed non-medical services such as furnishing diapers and maternity clothing, counseling and support groups to women in unplanned pregnancies. “Becerra” is Xavier Becerra, the current California Attorney General, the state’s chief law enforcement office.

What are the legal questions?

The constitutional issue at stake is, can California pass a law compelling pro-life pregnancy resource centers to promote abortion, or does that violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech? Past decisions of the Supreme Court interpret the First Amendment as prohibiting government from “compelling” objectionable speech unless it is the least restrictive way to further a very important government purpose. This standard puts a high bar in favor of free speech that government laws rarely clear.

Why is this case important?

If the law had been upheld, the consequences for free speech would have been devastating. If government is free to force anyone it wants to convey a message, especially people who oppose the government’s views, then the First Amendment would be meaningless. The California law could have, ominously, foreshadowed a dark future for free speech rights. Picture, for example, your family being forced by law to put up a sign on your lawn that says: “We proudly support abortion!” or “We support Gay Pride!” You get the point. Thank God the California law was struck down.

Key Links:

NIFLA’s opening brief

Alliance Defending Freedom information page

California Reproductive FACT Act

Written by Bruce Hausknecht · Categorized: Religious Freedom · Tagged: NIFLA, supreme court

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2

Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Terms of Use | © 2026 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • Cookie Policy