Skip to main content

"I mentioned Erin in passing, and said a 'she' in passing too, in the email. A few days later she called back and that was today. And called and verified it was a same-sex wedding," Pugh said.

And that's when Fleur Cakes said it wouldn't bake the cake.
The business is also Regentin's house. She was out of town but spoke to KATU News on the phone.

When asked if she was aware it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for a business that serves the public, Regentin said: "I believe I have the liberty to live by my principles."

She is not the first business owner to walk away from a gay wedding or similar ceremony. Most of them point out they serve gay customers, just not the weddings.

A lot of these business owners in other states are arguing for a new exemption, a religious exemption, which would let them turn away same-sex weddings.

State statutes say any place or service offering public accommodations must provide "full and equal accommodations without any distinction on account of race, color, religion, sex, or sexual orientation."

Don't Buy From Bigoted Bakers

Apparently the economy is good for this baker, she could so resolutely turn down business during this economic nightmare.

The story has a wonderful ending numerous bakers stepped up to offer their cakes.

But even these wonderful people trying to show this couple that they are equally offended it does little to blunt the initial pain this baker caused.

The article linked further mentions the ACLU has sought to inform these women that such business practices are illegal in this state.

Originally posted to Horace Boothroyd III on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:02 PM PDT.

Also republished by Pink Clubhouse, RaceGender DiscrimiNATION, Invisible People, Daily Kos Oregon, Street Prophets , Milk Men And Women, Angry Gays, PDX Metro, and Koscadia.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Glad this business "person" spoke out! (9+ / 0-)

    1) I use the term person in a very loose sense

    2) I am HAPPY to see people like this loudly and proudly inform the public of their bigoted stances!  I would rather they be out in the open for all to see, so that they can reap their deserved rewards for their narrow-minded stupidity!

    3) Hope more "people" like her step forward so that they too can be recognized like this baker!

    Sadly there are people in the world who would be proud to be thought of as a narrow-minded bigot :(

    Never underestimate stupid. Stupid is how reTHUGlicans win!

    by Mannie on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:08:59 PM PDT

  •  "You" Believe Wrong. (6+ / 0-)

    Because they believe that "living" is the same as "engaging in commerce."

    Although in all honesty the baker is correct, the baker understand the nation our owners are making us into.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:09:07 PM PDT

  •  such business practices are illegal in this state. (6+ / 0-)


    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:32:36 PM PDT

  •  rules for personal vs public conduct are different (4+ / 0-)

    For example, as the owner of the Buffalo Room found out years ago when he excluded African Americans from his establishment, he is free to be a bigot on his own time but not when he engages in public commerce which requires a license.  A license is a privilege not a right and the issuance of a business permit or license means it is public commerce which is regulated.

    In the South years ago, many public pools were converted to private club status to avoid integration because of the same consideration.  So while the baker has a right to discriminate privately, she has to live up to the terms of her business license.  It is that simple

  •  I wish the ACLU hadn't gotten involved (0+ / 0-)

    Assuming this bigot, like 99% of them, won't change her mind, then forcing her to comply with the law will only breed resentment and result in a lot of inferior cakes for gay weddings.  I'd much rather she be allowed to discriminate, and people know it up front so they can take their business to a place that actually wants to serve them and do a good job for them.  

    After learning this lesson for myself a few times, I always try to engage any person I contract with in small talk.  If they're a Republican or a bigot, I take my business elsewhere and warn people I know about them.  I'm sure the other side is just as happy at not having to work for a damn dirty commie hippie.  

    This is one case, one of the very few, where I think it's right to just let the market decide.

    •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols, Mannie

      You are confusing us with straight people.

      We don't tolerate inferior cake.

    •  I think I disagree with this (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols, SilentBrook, dannyboy1, Mannie

      If you have multiple choices, then we all prefer to go to someone who supports us.  But in a broader sense, what if you're from a small town and she's the only baker?  And there are other issues at play.  

      What if the restaurant is one of only four in town, and none of them will serve faggots?   You can drive 30m to the next town, can't you?  You can cook your own food.  You're not welcome there anway.

      NO: by FORCING compliance, yes, we may get inferior cakes (but do it too overtly and you'll be standing in front of a judge again).  Here's there point, in a decade the next generation of business owners will have no conception that such bigotry is acceptable.

      Look at the South.  Sure, it's infested with bigots.  But practically none of them could even conceive of not serving a person because of race (certainly none born after 1967).  It's just not in the national consciousness any more that it's acceptable to not serve a person of color at a business.  People look at pictures from the 60s of the lunch counter strikes and shake their heads in shock and dismay -- even many modern-day soft bigots do.  In the same way, this is the way we remove gay and trans bigotry -- by attacking the concept that's OK to discriminate in a business setting.  

      It even works with religion.  Mixed marriage was not only illegal, it was a sin for many religions in the US.  Now almost all of the churches that opposed mixed marriages for religious reasons accepted it.  In 1967 the Mormon Church received a revalation that God had changed His mind about Black People (to quote Book of Mormon).

      And yes, the cost is that some of us will eat bad cake.  Still, better than a water hose in the street (unless it's a mix cake. Those suck).

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:23:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Mormons held out till 1977 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dannyboy1, Mannie

        And only after the IRS threatened them, so they chose money over valuing the bigotry they taught their children.

      •  Question: I worked for a fair housing council in a (3+ / 0-)

        midwestern city in the late 80s. We went through ads in non-integrated areas of the city. Not segregated, right? Because segregation based on protected class was/is illegal. Tester calls, sets up appointment to see apartment, Black person, mixed-race couple, or single mom with child shows up to see apartment. Suddenly no longer available. Caucasian person shows up shortly thereafter. Apartment suddenly available. All details of case documented, complaint registered with Department of Justice, homeowner learns they can either choose to change renting strategy of face stiff fine, loss of rental revenue stream, or worse. Racist property owner tends to see light of enlightened policy or decided to live by "principle" and continue being a bigot. They eventually lose if they continue to live by their principle. Wouldn't the same scenario work here? That is, can similar mechanisms be put in place to test, document, and pursue complaints of discrimination based on sexual orientation of consumer? What are the relevant issues that would make this either workable or not? Thank you.

        I discover myself on the verge of a usual mistake. ― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

        by dannyboy1 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:58:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you have it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's exactly the same thing.

          And I guess perhaps I was too enthusiastic in my claim that such bigotry is wiped out. But it isn't just right out there for everyone to see like it used to be.

          Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

          by lostboyjim on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:53:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The minute the unreconstructed are faced (4+ / 0-)

    with defeat, they set about the task of figuring out how they will segregate themselves from minorities reality.

    I resent that. I demand snark, and overly so -- Markos Moulitsas.

    by commonmass on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:58:31 PM PDT

  •  Segregation (including segregated businesses) (4+ / 0-)

    Was also defended as a Christian practice.

    Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here:

    by Kimball Cross on Thu May 16, 2013 at 06:37:03 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site