Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The FAQs: Christian Bakers Face $135k Fine and Gag Order Over Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple
The FAQs: Christian Bakers Face $135k Fine and Gag Order Over Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple
Apr 25, 2026 2:23 PM

What is the case about?

In 2013, a lesbian couple went into Sweet Cakes, a bakery in Oregon, to order a “wedding cake” for their mitment ceremony. When the couple told the baker, Aaron Klein that it was for a same-sex ceremony, he told them he would serve homosexuals but that his religious beliefs would not allow him to participate by creating the cake for them. The couple filed plaint with the Oregon Labor Commission, claiming Sweet Cakes and the Kleins discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation.

Last week, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation,” said Avakian, a political appointee. In his ruling he notes he finds “no distinction” between refusing to serve a same-sex wedding and discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.

“[Aaron Klein]denied the full and equal modation, advantages, facilities and privileges of Sweet Cakes by Melissa to Complainants based on their sexual orientation thereby violating ORS 659A.403,” claims the ruling.

How much were the Kleins ordered to pay the couple?

The Commissioner awarded the lesbian couple $135,000 in “damages for emotional and mental suffering resulting from the denial of service.”

What were the claims of emotional and mental suffering?

The lesbian couple claims they suffered extensive emotional and mental suffering because they were discriminated against for their sexual orientation and because of the public attention it generated (attention which was brought about by their filing a plaint).

The couple listed several dozen examples of “emotional and mental suffering” including: “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain,” and “worry.”

No doctor, counselor, or psychiatrist confirmed any of these symptoms. missioner merely accepted these claims at face value even though his own ruling stated that Laurel Bowman-Cryer was frequently an unreliable witness:

[Laurel Bowman-Cryer] was a very bitter and angry witness who had a strong tendency to exaggerate and over-dramatize events. On cross examination, she argued repeatedly with Respondents’ counsel and had to be counseled by ALJ to answer the questions asked of her instead of editorializing about the denial of service and how it affected her. Her testimony was inconsistent in several respects with more credible evidence.

What was the basis of the claims of emotional and mental suffering?

The Bowman-Cryers claimed distress both because of the discrimination and because of the attention they received because of their plaint.

The couple filled out an Oregon Department of Justice Consumer Complaint Form against the Kleins and Sweet Cakes by Melissa which clearly stated the information would e part of the public record and be released to the business and persons it was about. Aaron Klein posted plaint on her Facebook page (at the time he only had 17 “friends” on his page). The Bowman-Cryers contacted their lawyer who asked Aaron Klein to take it down, which he did.

The Bowman-Cryers lawyer then sent a letter to several media sources asking that the lesbian couple’s name not be used in any news reports.

However, after an LGBT protest outside the bakery, the couple thanked the protestors on the Facebook page called “BoycottSweetCakesByMelissaGRESHAM” and indirectly identified themselves as the couple involved.

Did the Commissioner order a “gag order” on the Kleins?

A gag order (also known as a gagging order or suppression order) is an order by a court or government restricting information ment from being made public. The Commissioner did order a “gag order” by ordering the Kleins to cease and desist violating ORS 659A.403 and 659A.409.

The relevant portions of ORS 659A.403 merely state that everyone in Oregon is “entitled to the full and equal modations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public modation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account … sexual orientation…” However, ORS 659A.403 states that it is an unlawful practice for any person “acting on behalf of any place of public modation” to “publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, munication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the modations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public modation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of . . . sexual orientation . . .”

In an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, the Kleins explained why they could not bake the cake for the couple and they “don’t do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.” This was presented as evidence of the Klein’s future intent to violate 659A.403.

Because of this interpretation of the law, the missioner is requiring that the Kleins cease-and-desist from claiming that they will not provide services for same-sex weddings, either in their store or in public.

In much of mentary on this ruling, especially on social media, there has been some confusion about the scope of the cease and desist order that was issued. The Kleins still retain their right to speak to the media and to express their opinion about homosexuality and same-sex marriage provided that they do not mention they will continue to refuse services for same-sex weddings or speak about the subject “on behalf” of their business.

The Kleins, however, consider this to be an illegitimate restriction since they are not discriminating based on sexual orientation but are merely refusing to participate in a civil ceremony and “celebration” that violates their religious beliefs.

What happens next for the Kleins?

The Kleins have 10 days to file exceptions to the proposed order, and one of their attorneys has already pledged to contest the $135,000 damages award. On the Sweet Cakes by Melissa Facebook page, the Kleins wrote:

The final ruling has been made today. We have been charged with $135,000 in emotional damages, But also now Aaron has been charged with advertising. (Basically talking about not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding) This effectively strips us of all our first amendment rights. According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech. We will NOT give up this fight, and we will NOT be silenced. We stand for God’s truth, God’s word and freedom for ALL Americans. We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Climate Conspiracy Theory (w/apologies to CS Lewis)
MY DEAR WORMWOOD, It is indeed fortunate that Our Father has seen fit to quech our appetites in another way and put you in a new role despite your losing in quite dramatic style your former patient to our Enemy. At least you have the good sense to continue our counsel together. I note what you say about your patient’s apparent obsession with things terrestrial and that you’ve been taking care that he sees a good deal of his apoplectic...
Global warming media day
It’s global warming media day at the NYT and elsewhere following the SCOTUS decision on Massachusetts v. EPA: Linda Greenhouse, “Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases,” New York Times.Andrew C. Revkin, “Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming,” New York TimesEditorial, “The Court Rules on Warming,” New York Times“The Global Warming Survival Guide,” Time (HT: Zondervan>To the Point)“Warming ruling squeezes Bush from both sides,” MSNBCDavid B. Rivkin, Jr., “Discussion Board: Thoughts on Mass v....
‘Reverse’ subsidies
A couple weeks ago the NYT magazine ran a piece by contributing writer Tina Rosenberg, which attempts to outline some of the ways in which “everyone in a wealthy nation has e the beneficiary of the generous subsidies that poorer countries bestow upon rich ones.” What does she mean? In “Reverse Foreign Aid,” Rosenberg asserts that there are five major forms of poor-to-rich international subsidy. The first is the tendency among poorer nations to build-up great reserves of hard currency,...
New Call of the Entrepreneur website
is now open to the public. Stop on by for the latest updates on Acton’s new documentary, The Call of the Entrepreneur. You can view the trailer via YouTube or watch a higher resolution version via the “View the Trailer” tab. Find out where the premieres will be, or request to host a screening by visiting the “Premiere Information” tab. To see a little bit more about the people featured in the documentary, visit the “About the Film” tab....
Faith-based organizations measure success
Here’s a mended read for anyone interested in measuring the effectiveness of a faith-based charity. The Heritage Foundation has published a special report titled, e-Based Evaluation: Faith-Based Social Service Organizations and Stewardship” by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Claudia Horn, Calvin W. Edwards, Collette Caprara, and Karen M. Woods — Acton’s former Director of Effective Compassion. Summary: e-based evaluation has the potential to engender a revolution of increased effectiveness in the mu­nity and to debunk skeptics’ claim that faith-based programs are...
John Paul II: a Protestant tribute
Those who know me are not surprised to learn that I sincerely admired Pope John Paul II for many years. At first, like many Protestants, I saw him only as the pope, thus as a person standing in some kind of opposition to my own Christian faith. After I began to grasp what I believed about the Creed’s affirmation regarding “one, holy, catholic church” I found my heart melted to love all Christians everywhere. It was not hard for me...
A Psalm for Holy Week
Psalm 22 – A Cry of Anguish and Song of Praise – A Psalm of David 1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? 2O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. 3But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel. 4Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted,...
.xxx domain proposal fails, x3
The effort to create a top-level domain suffix for adult Web sites has failed, for the third time (HT: X3). ICANN voted 9-5 to defeat the proposal, which was roundly opposed by an unlikely alliance of religious groups and the adult entertainment industry. The proposal would have created a new “.xxx” suffix that would have allowed voluntary participation of adult content providers. Many in that line of work are concerned that such a voluntary program could e mandatory, “pushing them...
A one-size-fits-all approach to charity regulation?
Anyone concerned with good governance in the nonprofit sector — and it’s independence — should read the updated draft report on “principles of effective practice” issued by Independent Sector. The group has been working closely with the Senate Finance Committee, which for the past two years has been investigating abuses in the world of charities and nonprofits. The abuses, which usually involve excessive pensation and lavish perks, pop up with dreary regularity. A good example of this is what’s been...
EPA must examine climate change link
The Supreme Court ruled today (5-4) in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA (05-1120) “that the federal government had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that may contribute to global warming, and must examine anew the scientific evidence of a link between those gases and climate change.” Toward the end of last year some were arguing that “this case is not about the science of climate change. There is no dispute that human emissions of greenhouse gases affect the global...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved