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