Menu
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®
Kleins - Photo from First Liberty

History in the Baking: Latest Wedding Cake Decision Appealed to Supreme Court

Posted on September 30, 2022September 30, 2022 by Caden Benedict

On September 2, 2022, First Liberty petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Oregon Court of Appeals decision that upheld the state-imposed punishment of bakery owners, Melissa and Aaron Klein. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry had determined that the couple had violated a generally applicable public accommodations law in refusing to bake the cake and had even increased the fine because Aaron Klein had quoted the Bible when he communicated the refusal to the prospective customers.

This is the second time the Kleins have appealed to the Supreme Court on this issue. In June 2019, the Supreme Court vacated the original 2016 Appeals Court’s decision to consider a recent case in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. In the Masterpiece case, the Court found that the state must provide “neutral and respectful consideration” to “sincere religious beliefs motivating [they’re] objection.” In the Oregon case, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court decision given that the bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein, were not afforded this “neutral and respectful consideration.”

The Oregon case began in 2013 in Gresham, Oregon. The bakery, “Sweet Cakes by Melissa,” was forced to close when the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (“BOLI”) imposed a $135,000 penalty against it because it refused to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding because of its religious convictions.

According to the Kleins’ lawyers, BOLI was biased against religious expression. They said the prejudiced commissioner “accused the Kleins of using religion as ‘an excuse for their actions and said they needed to ‘learn from [the] experience’ and be ‘rehabilitate[d].’”

BOLI felt that increased damages were appropriate because when Aaron had explained his position to Cheryl McPherson, mother of one of the brides, he had quoted the Bible, and it offended the mother and couple. There is some factual disagreement about what Aaron said to Cheryl. Aaron said that he had quoted Leviticus 18:22 to her: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Cheryl disagreed and said that he called her daughter and her fiancé abominations.

In assigning damages, the BOLI “prosecutor argued that what mattered was that Aaron used the word ‘abomination,’ and how that word affected Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer [the lesbian couple].” The administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed but credited Aaron’s testimony about what he had said to Cheryl. The ALJ assigned damages despite this.

Aaron and Melissa appealed the BOLI decision in 2016, with the Oregon Court of Appeals upholding the decision but removing the gag order.

Jennifer Pizer, the Bowman-Cryer attorney, said, “The court was right five years ago and is still right today…The Kleins‘  faith does not give them a pass to ignore Oregon’s Public Accommodation Law.”

Following that decision, the Kleins appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, which denied review of that opinion.  They then approached the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the decision in June 2019.

After the June 2019 Supreme Court decision vacating the Oregon Court of Appeals decision, the Kleins returned to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court struck the $135,000 in damages because the BOLI commission prejudice had violated the First Amendment’s strict neutrality condition. The Court of Appeals found that:

“The prosecutor’s closing argument apparently equating the Kleins’ religious beliefs with ‘prejudice,’ together with the agency’s reasoning for imposing damages in connection with Aaron’s quotation of Leviticus, reflect that the agency acted in a way that passed judgment on the Kleins’ religious beliefs, something that is impermissible under Masterpiece Cakeshop.”

The Court of Appeals returned the case to BOLI, finding there was “no reason to think” BOLI would still be biased against the Kleins. The BOLI commission reimposed $30,000 in damages based on the prior hearing, with no new hearing called, and the underlying liability for the Kleins remained in place.

Although the restrictions placed on the Kleins may seem to violate the Free Exercise Clause, the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court found in Masterpiece Cakeshop that religious liberty could be restricted under a neutral, generally-applicable law in line with Employment Division v. Smith (1990).  In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Supreme Court focuses not on religious liberty or free expression of religion but government neutrality in legal procedure. However, some justices, including Justice Thomas, thought religious freedom should not be restricted.

Given that the Oregon Court of Appeals considered whether BOLI was biased and still found the Kleins liable for discrimination, the Supreme Court will have to more directly evaluate the viability of the Smith approach to free-exercise jurisprudence.

The First Liberty lawyer for the Klein’s said in the recent petition to the Supreme Court:

“All Americans are entitled to due process, with a fair hearing before an unbiased tribunal. The Kleins never received that…We hope the [Supreme] Court will hear the Kleins case and clarify that all Americans have a constitutional right to due process, free speech, and religious liberty.”

Case Materials:  Melissa Elaine Klein, et vir, Petitioners v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (Cert filed 9/7/2022) , U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 22-204 

 

Caden Benedict is a Senior at Pepperdine University majoring in Economics and minoring in Great Books. He is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of the The Pepperdine Beacon, a media and news organization preserving and promoting the values and mission of the university through a relentless pursuit of truth. He plans to attend law school and enter the film industry after his education.

 

Image:  FirstLiberty.org 

Tweets by RelLibertyTV

Recent Posts

  • U.S. District Court Dismisses Hunter v. US Dept of Education Lawsuit

    U.S. District Court Dismisses Hunter v. US Dept of Education Lawsuit

    February 5, 2023
  • Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

    Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

    January 30, 2023
  • Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

    Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

    January 13, 2023
  • Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

    Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

    January 11, 2023
  • Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

    Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

    January 9, 2023

We are not a law firm, do not provide any legal services, legal advice or “lawyer referral services” and do not provide or participate in any legal representation.

©2023 ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® | WordPress Theme by Superb Themes
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}