Court Fines Bakers $135,000

April 24, 2015  

If you thought it was expensive to buy a wedding cake, try not baking one! Aaron and Melissa Klein found out just how expensive today, when -- after two long years -- an Oregon judge finally told the young parents of five exactly how much living by their beliefs would cost them: $135,000. Their dream of owning a dessert shop near Portland, Oregon turned into a nightmare when two lesbians refused to take "no" for an answer on their request for a same-sex "wedding" cake.

Sued, harassed, vandalized, and threatened to the point that the couple had to close their doors, the Kleins still didn't budge. Found guilty by an administrative court earlier this year, the Kleins spent four sleepless weeks wondering what the government -- the same one that guarantees them the freedom of religion -- would charge them. Now that they've been ordered to pay up to $135,000 in fines, Aaron and Melissa have made it clear that they are willing to pay a far steeper price to stand up for Christ.

"To be told they're going to force me to convey a message other than what I want to convey -- it flies in the face of the Constitution," Aaron explained. "It's a violation of my conscience. It's a violation of my religious freedom. It's horrible to see your own government doing this to you."

Anna Harmon, one of the Kleins' attorneys, said the sentencing was tough to swallow. "Americans should not have to choose between adhering to their faith or closing their business, but that is what this decision means... The [judge] ruled wrongly that the Kleins' right not to design and create a work of art celebrating an event which violates the tenets of their religion is not protected by the Oregon or Federal Constitutions. This is a dangerous result for religious liberty and rights of conscience in Oregon..."

Unfortunately, the Kleins are just one of the families hanging in the balance of the Supreme Court's scales. When the justices go to work next Tuesday, they'll be deciding a lot more issues than the definition of marriage. For the sake of the First Amendment, let's hope that our right not to be forced to violate our faith is one of them.

In the meantime, if you'd like to help the Kleins raise the money they need to exercise their religious liberty,please visit this webpage for more information. Then, click over to TonyPerkins.com later tonight to hear our interview with this courageous couple!

Tuesday's the day: Same-sex marriage arguments at Supreme Court

By Mark Sherman

Associated Press

Published: Monday, April 27 2015 12:59 p.m. MDT

WASHINGTON — Tuesday is a potential watershed moment for America's gay and lesbian couples. After rapid changes that have made same-sex marriage legal in all but 14 states, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether it should be the law of the land.

All eyes will be on the justices for any signals that they are prepared to rule that the Constitution forbids states from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On the sidewalk outside, people have been waiting in line since Friday for prized seats for the historic arguments.

The cases before the court come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, all of which had their marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in November. That is the only federal appeals court that has ruled in favor of the states since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law.

The first state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry was Massachusetts, in 2004. Even as recently as October, barely a third of the states permitted it. Now, same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia, a dramatic change in the law that has been accompanied by an equally fast shift in public opinion.

Now that everyone else has weighed in through mountains of legal briefs, the justices get to say, or at least hint, what they will decide. On Tuesday, five lawyers will present arguments over 2½ hours to help the court conclude whether, on this question, the 14 remaining states must join the rest of the country.

The main thrust of the states' case is to reframe the debate.

"This case is not about the best marriage definition. It is about the fundamental question regarding how our democracy resolves such debates about social policy: Who decides, the people of each state or the federal judiciary?" John Bursch, representing Michigan, wrote in his main brief to the court.

Read the entire article at:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765672694/Tuesdays-the-day-Gay-marriage-arguments-at-Supreme-Court.html

Utah House panel delays action on anti-bias, religious rights bill

(this article is about two separate bills, the first is is SB296 which is the main anti-discriminaton law that introduces gender and sexual identity and gives some religious protections and the second is SB297 allowing clerks to opt out of performing gay marriages)

To read the entire article go to:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865623852/Utah-House-panel-delays-action-on-anti-bias-religious-rights-bill.html?s_cid=Email-1

Click here to find names, phone numbers and email address for those who represent you in the State legislature. 

Utah House members raised lots of questions during a hearing Monday on potentially monumental legislation looking to balance nondiscrimination and religious freedom.

Coupling that with the nearly 20 people who wanted to speak for and against SB296, the House Judiciary Committee decided to continue the hearing to Tuesday at 2 p.m. The panel didn't take action on the bill.

The bill, which easily passed the Senate last week, proposes to add sexual orientation and gender identity to Utah's anti-discrimination laws for housing and employment, clarify exemptions for religious institutions and provide protections for religious expression.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the LGBT community and business leaders support the measure.

Meantime, the Senate late Monday passed SB297, which would allow elected county clerks to opt out of solemnizing gay marriages for religious reasons as long as they find someone in or out of the office such as a local pastor or judge who would do it. The bill nows goes to the House.

...  
Rep. Brian Greene, R-Pleasant Grove, questioned whether SB296 strikes a proper balance between religious and LGBT rights. He said he's not sure the proposed law would protect people like former Salt Lake police officer Eric Moutsos, who was disciplined for citing religious reasons for not wanting to perform with his motorcycle squad in last summer's gay pride parade.

Greene said the bill is fraught with those types of ambiguities.

"This just one example where this bill falls short," he said.

Rep. Keven Stratton, R-Orem, asked whether the bill was properly vetted and if it's being pushed through too quickly.

Urquhart replied, "I'd say seven years is not a rush."

Urquhart has run a statewide anti-discrimination bill in housing and employment the past three years and others tried without success in the years before that.

Adams, a co-sponsor on SB296, said lawmakers also have fought for religious freedom legislation for years.

"It's not a new concept," he said.

House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper, said he doesn't expect SB296 to have any difficulty in the House.

"The only issue is that people need to be familiar with it," Hughes said.

A religious liberty bill from Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, is on hold in the House, but Hughes said he "would hope it doesn’t compete" with the compromise legislation passed by the Senate.

Christensen, who heads the House Judiciary Committee, said during the hearing that it could take lawmakers up until the final hours of the legislative session, which ends at midnight Thursday, to find a "fair and balanced outcome." He also raised the idea that it could take more than one bill.

Gov. Gary Herbert has said he would sign SB296 if it crosses his desk.

Click here to find names, phone numbers and email address for those who represent you in the State legislature. 

SB296’s spirit of compromise: 10 scenarios where SB296 balances safeguards for LGBT with religious liberties

Where anti-discrimination and religious-liberty protections may or may not apply

• Print
• Font [+] [-]
• 28 Comments »

By Michael Erickson and Jenet Jacob Erickson, For the Deseret News

Published: Sunday, March 8 2015 7:52 p.m. MDT

SB296 does not treat this as discrimination because Utah’s antidiscrimination laws do not apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees. Antidiscrimination laws have consistently allowed small businesses wide discretion over the employees they hire.

• An employee has several “water cooler” conversations at work regarding his beliefs about marriage and family. A supervisor tells him that his anti-gay attitudes are not welcome.

SB296 guarantees that an employee “may express the employee’s religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.”

• An employee regularly makes fun of his LGBT co-worker with crude taunts and mean-spirited putdowns, but claims he’s just telling the truth in the Bible.

Religious liberty is not a shield for harassment. SB296 does not protect the expression of religious or moral beliefs if they are unreasonable, disruptive, or harassing. The example we chose is clearly harassment. But SB296 should not be misused to label an employee’s statement that marriage is between a man and woman as an expression that is unreasonable, disruptive or harassing to LGBT employees.

Read entire article at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865623717/SB2967s-spirit-of-compromise-10-scenarios-where-SB296-balances-safeguards-for-LGBT-with-religious.html?pg=2

‘Historic’ bill that aims to balance LGBT rights and religious freedom unveiled

MARCH 4, 2015, BY BEN WINSLOW, 

SALT LAKE CITY — A bill that aims to balance religious liberties and LGBT rights has been unveiled in the Utah State Legislature.

Senate Bill 296 would prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation or gender identity” in housing and employment. But at the same time, it also takes efforts to safeguard religious freedoms for people who oppose homosexuality.

Some of the highlights of SB296:

• It would be illegal to fire someone or deny them housing because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender;
• Likewise, it would be illegal to do the same for someone who speaks out against same-sex marriage or homosexuality on religious grounds;
• The bill defines “gender identity” and addresses restroom use for transgender people;
• The bill exempts religions and the Boy Scouts of America;
• No religious exemptions from the non-discrimination provisions would be allowed for individuals or for-profit businesses;
• While “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are used in code, it does not create a special class of protections for other purposes;
• Religious organization owned housing, like at Brigham Young University, would be exempted from the law.

The bill is the result of negotiations between key lawmakers, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and groups advocating for the rights of the LGBT community.

“Despite the challenges and the difficulties and the complexity of negotiations, a spirit of respect and good will has allowed all involved to respect the differences of one another and bring about Senate Bill 296,” said Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

At a news conference Wednesday, three leaders of the LDS Church stood alongside members of the LGBT rights group Equality Utah and state lawmakers to unveil the legislation. Some wept as they spoke about the bill’s impact and how it could bridge two divided communities.

“This issue between religious liberties and anti-discrimination can be in fact controversial and divisive. We’ve found a way to bring those issues together and have respect for one another, respect for all, freedom for all,” said Senate Majority Whip Stuart Adams, R-Layton, who is co-sponsoring the bill with Sen. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George and Rep. Brad Dee, R-Ogden.

Troy Williams, the director of Equality Utah, said the bill sends a powerful message to LGBT people in the state.

“The work that we do today, the legislation that we pass this session will provide hope to thousands of LGBT youth living in Utah,” he said. “We will send a message to them that you belong in Utah.”

SB296 was praised by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group.

“This is an extraordinary moment for the state of Utah, for LGBT Americans, and for the Mormon Church, which, by supporting this legislation, shows a willingness to align with others on the right side of history,” HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement. “The desire exhibited by the Mormon Church to work toward common ground should serve as a model for other faith traditions here in the United States.”

Governor Gary Herbert praised the bill.

“Today’s announcement is a great example of what makes Utah great. We work together to tackle difficult issues. I applaud members of the House and Senate for working with the LGBT community and religious, business, and civic leaders toward a worthy goal. The way our state has addressed this issue will serve as a model for the rest of the nation,” he said in a statement.

The Libertas Institute, a Libertarian think-tank in Utah, said it would oppose SB296 “on principle.” Libertas president Connor Boyack told FOX 13 the group opposes restrictions on property rights.

The ACLU of Utah said it “strongly supports” SB296.

Read the entire article at: http://fox13now.com/2015/03/04/compromise-lgbt-nondiscrimination-religious-liberties-released-heres-what-it-says/

Alabama Supreme Court Halts Same-sex Marriages

Wednesday 4 March 2015 04.47 EST

The Alabama supreme court has ordered the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licences to gay couples, saying a previous federal ruling that gay marriage bans violate the US constitution did not preclude them from following state law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The all-Republican court in Montgomery on Tuesday sided with the argument offered by a pair of conservative organisations, appealing against a decision by US district judge Callie Granade of Mobile, who ruled in January that both Alabama’s constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

It was not immediately clear what impact the latest ruling would have, or whether it would stand. While a six-member majority of the nine-member court did not explicitly invalidate the marriages of hundreds of same-sex couples who obtained licences in the state in recent weeks, the decision used the term “purported” to describe those licences.

The court’s most outspoken opponent of gay marriage, Chief Justice Roy Moore, disqualified himself from the case and did not take part in the writing of the unsigned 134-page decision.

After Granade’s ruling, Moore told probate judges across the state not to issue same-sex marriage licences. His stance created widespread confusion, prompting some judges to refuse to issue the licences and others to shut their operations for all couples, gay and straight, until they could get a clear answer. Some, however, decided to issue the licences.

Of the other judges on Alabama’s high court, one agreed with the ruling while citing some reservations, and one, Justice Greg Shaw, dissented.

In his dissent, Shaw said it was “unfortunate” that federal courts refused to delay gay marriage in the state until the US supreme court could settle the issue nationally. But, Shaw said, the state supreme court did not have the power to consider the issue and was creating more confusion by “venturing into uncharted waters” outside its jurisdiction.

Read the entire story at: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/alabama-judges-halt-same-sex-marriages?CMP=ema_565

Ex-NFL Player Who Claims He Was Fired From Broadcasting Job Over His Views on Homosexuality Delivers Passionate Religious Freedom Speech

Feb. 4, 2015 8:26am Billy Hallowell

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, an Oregon bakery at the center of national controversy for declining to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, and Craig James, the former NFL and sportscaster who claims he was fired from Fox Sports Southwest over his opposition to homosexuality, have something in common: they’re refusing to back down.

Melissa and Aaron Klein (Sweet Cakes by Melissa)

Sweet Cakes owners Aaron and Melissa Klein and James appeared together at a press conference at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville, Tennessee, this week, where they outlined their respective battles over religious freedom and conscience.

Speaking on behalf of the couple, Aaron Klein — who risks a $150,000 fine for the initial refusal to bake the cake — told press in attendance that he believes the “American people are not in line with what the government is doing” when it comes to the gay marriage debate.

Klein said that, though it might seem as though the culture war has been lost, he doesn’t believe that is the case, encouraging Christians to take a stand for their rights.

“It would almost appear that we have lost the battle of culture. As Christians … I say that we can fight for our rights — that we should fight for our rights,” he said. “It’s painfully evident that it’s something we do need to do at this juncture … we’re not called to win these battles … we’re called to put on the full armor of God and stand.”

Klein said that he believes people like him and his wife have the responsibility not to simply cower and remain quiet.

“We are going to see this agenda forced down the throats of every American at some juncture,” he said. “I believe we have an obligation to this next generation to stand up for our freedoms not given by man, but given by God.”

Klein continued, “As Ronald Reagan said, ‘We’re never more than one generation away from losing our freedom,’”

The couple was recently found guilty of discrimination by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, with a hearing coming in March to further hash out the ongoing case (read more about the story here).

James, too, a former NFL player and a broadcaster, shared details about his legal battle against Fox Sports Southwest for alleged religious discrimination after he says he was fired for his past statements about homosexuality.

“The biblical definition of marriage is between a man and a woman,” James proclaimed, proceeding to recap his employment plight. “Fox Sports … recruited me for a job. I went on the air, spent 24 hours and was fired the next day, because some groups called and said, ‘What about James’ views?’”

James, who is engaged in a battle to highlight what he believes is a key case of faith-based employment discrimination, said that he plans to stand firm and openly push back against what unfolded.

Read the entire article at: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/baker-who-faces-monumental-fines-for-refusing-to-make-a-wedding-cake-for-a-lesbian-couple-reveals-why-he-wont-back-down-in-passionate-religious-freedom-speech/