Let Them Eat Cake! Or Don't...

Original Article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/02/gresham_bakery_says_oregon_con.html#incart_river

Behind the Scenes…

            I rewrote an article from The Oregonian, my primary hometown newspaper, about a bakery-owner couple that denied service to a lesbian couple who wanted figurines on their wedding cake. The Oregonian’s article was originally fairly neutral, explaining that the owners say their response has been taken out of context while at the same time discussing the store’s prior sale to the couple’s heterosexual parents. In my alteration, I chose language to fit a pro-same-sex-marriage blogging style, such as can be found on Andrew Sullivan’s blog at http://dish.andrewsullivan.com. To do this, I removed statements from the owners, added a link and discussion about potential positive legislation in pro-gay marriage news, presented opinion about equality and contradictory behavior by opposition, and suggested instructions on supporting the arguments negating church’s power. My language reflects these choices with strong diction in reference to unsupported views, and broad, difficult to oppose vocabulary and arguments when discussing human rights.

Let Them Eat Cake! Or Don’t

The tyranny continues. The power struggle has a new flame. Our fight for equality takes another step back on its flourishing journey. Oregon’s anti-gay legislation acted as a roadblock today, enraging the members of our supportive community. Aaron and Melissa Klein own a cake bakery in Gresham, and made the unconstitutional decision against our rights as individuals when dismissing a lesbian couple as clients because of their sexual preferences. Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, a happily engaged couple, requested a cake with two feminine characters atop its uppermost level. Disallowing the tradition of representing love interests for a wedding-day display is nothing less than an abomination. The owners, claiming, “[their] rights to freedom of worship and freedom of religious opinion should protect them,” consider their own Christian faith reason enough to barricade Cryer and Bowman from culinary representation of their happiness.

Oregon law, as the owners claim, protects their decision under their freedom of religion. However, this freedom says nothing about the legal allowance of one to encroach upon another’s religious preferences or sexual orientation. In fact, legislation in our state does not endorse discrimination of any kind. It particularly states that preferential discrimination cannot sabotage accommodations for others. The Oregonian explains,

“State law says it is a violation for a business to deny ‘full and equal accommodations’ for customers based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other factors. The Oregon Equality Act also protects the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Oregonians in employment, housing and public places.”

This protects the gay community in public places directly- Sweet Cakes included- by written law.

As per usual, we cannot step down in our pursuit for protection. Basic Rights Oregon has begun a petition for allowing same-sex marriage in the state of Oregon to be legally recognized, further elaborated upon at http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/02/backers_of_gay_marriage_will_t.html. This political confrontation will soon come to a close, as the cake-denial incident merely fuels our intentions. Our moral obligations must follow the rights of equality this country provides and with your support for Basic Rights Oregon’s proposal we can surely expect to overcome opposition. The upcoming election is not presidentially centered; so voting rates are likely to decline, especially from democratic naysayers. The OregonLive article insists,

“The most recent public survey on the issue, by Public Policy Polling in December, found that 54 percent of Oregon voters believed same-sex marriage should be legal, while 40 percent were opposed.”

This should make our future success more obvious than ever, if we continue to pour in the necessary support.

We have the statistical support, but we need more to change social expectations. Who is to say a cake maker’s decoration must represent values and beliefs of the chef with decorative expertise? Just as a car dealer has no say in which bumper stickers shield and damage the fine paint job on a new car’s exterior, so shall an icing expert have no right to dispute decorative color, size, shape, and prop choice of a commissioned project. No child is denied a Cookie Monster birthday cake because the iconic character’s blue color is unrealistic, and no pastry chef should turn away a wedding figure of a client whose haircut reflects typical styling of the opposite gender. So, whether or not someone agrees with the imaginary phallic objects under synthetic clothing should have no say in a business-to-consumer relationship. In the spirit of human equality and highlighted by Valentine’s Day, let’s ignite our fighting spirits and defend what we deserve.