Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

Last updated

Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
Court Oregon Court of Appeals
Full case nameMelissa Elaine Klein, dba Sweet Cakes by Melissa, and Aaron Wayne Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
DecidedDecember 28, 2017 (2017-12-28)
Citation(s) 289 Or. App. 507 (2017)
Case history
Prior action(s) In re Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa, BOLI Final Order, Nos. 44-14 & 44-15 (July 2, 2015)
Appealed from Administrative adjudication by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
Court membership
Judges sittingDeVore, Presiding Judge, and Judges Garrett and James
Case opinions
Decision byGarrett

Klein, dba Sweet Cakes by Melissa, v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries was a legal case against a cake shop in Gresham, Oregon, in the United States. The cake shop gained widespread press attention in January 2013 when it turned away customers who wanted cakes for a same-sex wedding, who then made a complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, claiming their civil rights under the Oregon Equality Act had been infringed. [1] [2] [3]

Case history

On January 17, 2013, a woman and her mother were invited to a Gresham, Oregon bakery called "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" (owned by the couple Melissa Elaine Klein and Aaron Wayne Klein) for a scheduled wedding cake tasting appointment. The woman selected the bakery after having been a customer previously. Upon introductions, Aaron Klein asked for the names of the "bride and groom," at which point the customer said there were actually two brides. On hearing this, Klein informed them that the bakery does not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of their religious beliefs. When the woman's mother tried to object, Klein responded by quoting Leviticus 18:22, which refers to male homosexual sex as an "abomination." [4]

The customer subsequently filed a complaint with Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries, alleging the bakery had discriminated against her and her fiancée because of their sexual orientation. [5] Aaron Klein responded by posting a copy of the complaint's first page on their Facebook page, which contained the full names and contact information of the customer and her fiancée. [4] When the couple discovered this, they had their lawyer contact Klein, who then removed the posting. While only up for a single day, this posting ultimately resulted in death threats against the couple and their family. [4]

On February 1, 2013, news media became aware of the case despite the couple's efforts to avoid public attention. [4] A few weeks after, a demonstration occurred outside the bakery criticizing their refusal to make the cake, though it was organized by individuals with no association with the original couple, and the couple did not attend it. [4] After receiving extensive criticism on Facebook and in the news, the Kleins closed their storefront in September 2013, switching to operating the business from their home. [6] [7]

In April 2015, an administrative court made a preliminary decision to fine the business $135,000. [8] The Kleins in turn opened a GoFundMe page, "Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa", which raised over $100,000 before it was shut down by GoFundMe, who stated that the campaign violated their terms of service. Go Fund Me later released a statement saying that the Kleins would receive all the donations. [9] In a statement, GoFundMe confirmed that the funds raised before the appeal was shut down would still be available for withdrawal. [9]

The administrative court's decision was confirmed in a final order by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries in July 2015. [10] [11] The final text of the order reads as follows:

Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation. [4]

The cease and desist order has been widely described as a gag order, and has brought national attention to this case on First Amendment free speech grounds. [12] However, this part of the order was consistent with another Oregon state law (ORS 659A.409) which prohibits businesses from advertising an intention to discriminate against customers, including on the basis of sexual orientation. [13]

The Kleins stated that they would contest the Bureau's decision. [14] However, after appealing for 6 months, Aaron Klein paid the final order with interest, though still stating he would continue to appeal the order on free speech grounds. [15] In December 2017, an appeals court upheld the amount of the penalty, as well as making a determination that the original decision did not violate the Kleins' freedom of speech, as it simply "requires their compliance with a neutral law." [16] The opinion issued by the court contained several interpretations on matters of contention. First, the court rejected the Kleins' argument that there was a distinction between sexual orientation and "gay conduct" (i.e. a same-sex wedding) and found "we hold that their refusal to serve the complainants is the type of discrimination 'on account of sexual orientation' that falls within the plain meaning" of the state law. Second, the court found the Kleins' failed to demonstrate their wedding cakes are protected speech, art, or expression under the First Amendment. Third, it rejected their argument that the state's statute violates the Free Exercise Clause. Fourth, the court rejected the Kleins' argument that the commissioner issuing the original order was biased and that the fine was excessive. The final part of the opinion concluded that there was insufficient evidence the Klein's violated a specific state law (ORS 659A.409) regarding threatening or advertising they would unlawfully discriminate against persons in the future, though there was no fine associated with this specific charge. [17]

In March 2018, the Kleins filed an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. [18] In June 2018, the Oregon State Supreme Court refused to hear the case allowing the lower court rulings to stand. [19]

The Kleins then filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. [20] [21] In June 2019, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and vacated the standing ruling by the Oregon Appeals Court, requiring that court to rehear the case in the light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision in 2018. [22] [23]

In January 2022, the Oregon Court of Appeals, reviewing the case in light of the Supreme Courts decision, found that the Oregon commission violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by failing to act neutrally toward the Kleins’ religion. The court struck the $135,000 damages award because of this. However the court contended that the Kleins had still violated the law and sent the case back to the Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries to re-examine. [24]

In July 2022, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries imposed a reduced fine of $30,000.

In September 2022, attorneys for the Kleins announced that they were again appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court [25] to review the Klein's case.

On June 30, 2023 the Supreme Court of the United States again intervened in the case and issued a Writ of Certiorari and vacated the judgement again, and returned it, for a second time, to the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon. [26] in light of their decision 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U. S. ___ (2023). [27]


Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span> Overview of the status of same-sex marriage in United States

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brad Avakian</span> American politician

Brad Peter Avakian is an American politician who served as a Democrat in the Oregon House, the Oregon Senate, and as the state's nonpartisan elected Labor Commissioner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Northern Ireland</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Northern Ireland have traditionally been slower to advance than the rest of the United Kingdom, with the region having lagged behind England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland was the last part of the United Kingdom where same-sex sexual activity was decriminalised, the last to implement a blood donation “monogamous no waiting period” policy system for men who have sex with men and, after intervention by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the last to allow same-sex marriage. Compared to the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, all major LGBT rights milestones had been reached earlier in Northern Ireland, with the exception of same-sex marriage. Homosexuality was decriminalised in Northern Ireland a decade earlier and civil partnerships were introduced six years earlier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Hong Kong</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Hong Kong may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Louisiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Washington (state)</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the U.S. state of Washington have evolved significantly since the late 20th century. Same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1976. LGBT people are fully protected from discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations; the state enacting comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation regarding sexual orientation and gender identity in 2006. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2012, and same-sex couples are allowed to adopt. Conversion therapy on minors has also been illegal since 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Oregon</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Oregon have the same rights and responsibilities as non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Oregon, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since May 2014 when a federal judge declared the state's ban on such marriages unconstitutional. Previously, same-sex couples could only access domestic partnerships, which guaranteed most of the rights of marriage. Additionally, same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations is outlawed in the state under the Oregon Equality Act, enacted in 2008. Conversion therapy on minors is also illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

First Liberty Institute is a nonprofit Christian conservative legal organization based in Plano, Texas.

<i>Geiger v. Kitzhaber</i> 2014 court case in Oregon, US, about same-sex marriage

Geiger v. Kitzhaber is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that requires Oregon to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. The decision arose from two consolidated cases that alleged that Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Article 15, § 5, and all related marriage statutes, violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Among the several defendants, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed appearances in the case to defend Oregon's position, but declined to defend the constitutionality of the bans and ordered state agencies to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages established elsewhere.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Mississippi since June 26, 2015. On November 25, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled that Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Enforcement of his ruling was stayed pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution. On June 29, Attorney General Jim Hood ordered clerks to comply with the court ruling and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Fifth Circuit lifted its stay on July 1, and Judge Reeves ordered an end to Mississippi's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban. However, until July 2, 2015, several counties in Mississippi continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses, including DeSoto, Jasper, Jones, Newton, Pontotoc, Simpson and Yalobusha.

The Arlene's Flowers lawsuit was a group of merged civil suits brought against Arlene's Flowers of Richland, Washington, US, by a couple whose longtime florist declined service of their same-sex wedding, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. The lawsuits gained national attention due to their religious and civil rights implications. The Supreme Court of the United States let stand two unanimous verdicts by the Washington state Supreme Court that same-sex couples cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religious freedom.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada</span>

The Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada, known to most simply as The Center, is a nonprofit organization located in Las Vegas, Nevada, that has served the local lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community since 1993. The splendid building and the land on which it sits were accomplished following a very generous bequest by Las Vegas educator and businessman Robert L. Forbuss. The idea and scope of the project was suggested to Forbuss by his two closest friends, Las Vegas physicians Jerry L. Cade and Dennis M. Causey. In 2013, The Center moved into the new Robert L. Forbuss Building in Downtown Las Vegas and began also serving the low to moderate income residents of the area. Programs and services are generally free to the public. The Center is a member of Centerlink, the national membership organization for LGBT centers.

In the United States, a religious freedom bill is a bill that, according to its proponents, allows those with religious objections to oppose LGBT rights in accordance with traditional religious teachings without being punished by the government for doing so. This typically concerns an employee who objects to abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, civil unions, or transgender identity and wishes to avoid situations where they will be expected to put those objections aside. Proponents commonly refer to such proposals as religious liberty or conscience protection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles LiMandri</span> American lawyer (born 1955)

Charles LiMandri is an American lawyer. In a case that made national headlines, he litigated against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the defense of the Mount Soledad Cross in San Diego. The battle over the religious symbol, which lasted more than 25 years, is one of the longest in the history on the United States. Limandri has a private law practice, and in 2002 he founded the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund to pay for his pro bono work on behalf of religious freedom.

<i>Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others</i> Northern Ireland, UK discrimination, and freedom of speech and religious expression, legal case

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others[2018] UKSC 49 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Gareth Lee and Ashers Baking Company, owned by Daniel and Amy McArthur of Northern Ireland. Lee brought the case after Ashers refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings in favour of Lee and made a judgement in favour of Ashers. The court said there was no discrimination against Lee and that Ashers' objections were with the message they were being asked to promote. The court held that people in the United Kingdom could not legally be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagreed with. The case became known in the British and Irish media as the "gay cake" case.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state of Colorado cannot compel the designer to create work that violates her values. The case follows from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), which had dealt with similar conflict between free speech rights and Colorado's anti-discrimination laws, but was decided on narrower grounds.

References

  1. ↑ Rede, George (April 24, 2015). "Same-Sex Couple in Sweet Cakes Controversy Should Receive $135,000, Hearings Officer Says". OregonLive . Retrieved April 25, 2015.
  2. ↑ Roth, Sara (February 3, 2015). "Bakery Risks Large Fine for Anti-Gay Discrimination". USA Today . Retrieved April 25, 2015.
  3. ↑ "Same-Sex Couple Files Formal Civil Rights Complaint with BOLI Against Gresham Bakery" (PDF). Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. August 14, 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries- Findings of Fact
  5. ↑ "Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint". OregonLive.com. August 14, 2013. Retrieved January 26, 2018.
  6. ↑ "Gresham Cake Bakery That Refused Service to Gays Has Closed". Willamette Week. Retrieved January 26, 2018.
    Kopta, Chelsea (September 2, 2013). "Sweet Cakes owners respond to firestorm over wedding cake decision". Portland, OR: KATU-TV. Archived from the original on December 19, 2013. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
  7. ↑ Wong, Curtis M. (October 1, 2014). "Sweet Cakes by Melissa's Owners Say Fine for Rejecting Lesbian Couple Will Leave Them Bankrupt". The Huffington Post . Retrieved April 25, 2015.
  8. ↑ DuBois, Steven (April 24, 2015). "Judge to Sweet Cakes: Pay $135K to lesbian couple". KOIN. Archived from the original on March 25, 2017. Retrieved January 26, 2018.
  9. 1 2 Beck, Byron (April 25, 2015). "'Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa' GoFundMe Page Violates Terms". GoLocalPDX. Retrieved April 25, 2015.
  10. ↑ Richardson, Valerie (July 2, 2015). "Sweet Cakes by Melissa Owners Owe $135,000 in Damages for Gay Wedding Refusal". The Washington Times.
  11. ↑ Rede, George (July 8, 2015). "Gag Order or Cease and Desist? National Media Feud over Sweet Cakes". OregonLive. Retrieved December 28, 2017.
  12. ↑ Rede, George (July 8, 2015). "Gag order or cease and desist? National media feud over Sweet Cakes". The Oregonian. Retrieved June 8, 2018.
  13. ↑ "ORS 659A.409 - Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited". 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes. March 30, 2018. Retrieved June 18, 2019.
  14. ↑ Muskal, Michael (July 4, 2015). "Bakery Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Denying Wedding Cake to Lesbian Couple". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved July 11, 2015.
  15. ↑ "Oregon Bakery that Rejected Lesbian Couple Pays Fine After All". The Huffington Post. Associated Press. December 28, 2015.
    "Oregon Bakery Owners Pay More than $135G in Damages over Refusal to Make Cake for Gay Wedding". Fox News. December 29, 2015.
    "Sweet Cakes Owners Pay Damages While Continuing Appeal of $135,000 Bias Case". The Oregonian. December 29, 2015.
  16. ↑ Friedman, Gordon R. (December 28, 2017). "Appeals Court Upholds Fine Against Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Same-Sex Wedding Cake". OregonLive. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  17. ↑ "Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus, 410 P.3d 1051". Casetext. December 28, 2017. Retrieved June 18, 2019.
  18. ↑ McNiel, Lacy (March 2, 2018). "First Liberty Institute Files Appeal at Oregon Supreme Court In Sweet Cakes by Melissa Case". GlobeNewswire. Retrieved May 9, 2018.
  19. ↑ Green, Aimee (June 22, 2018). "Oregon Supreme Court won't hear Sweet Cakes by Melissa's appeal". Oregonian. Retrieved June 23, 2018.
  20. ↑ "Docket Search". Supreme Court of the United States. October 26, 2018. Retrieved June 18, 2019.
  21. ↑ "Gresham bakery appeals fine for turning away lesbian couple". KTVZ. October 23, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  22. ↑ "Order List, Monday, June 17, 2019" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved June 18, 2019.
  23. ↑ "Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries". SCOTUSblog. October 29, 2018. Retrieved June 17, 2019.
  24. ↑ VanderHart, Dirk (January 26, 2022). "Oregon appeals court upholds discrimination ruling in Sweet Cakes case, but vacates penalties". Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
  25. ↑ Jon, Brown (September 8, 2022). "Christian bakers petition Supreme Court again to overturn penalty for refusing to bake same-sex wedding cake". Fox News. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
  26. ↑ "CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS 22-204 KLEIN, MELISSA E., ET VIR V. OR BUREAU OF LABOR" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved January 19, 2024.
  27. ↑ "Sweet Cakes by Melissa Case". First Liberty. First Liberty Institute. Retrieved July 1, 2023.

45°30′14″N122°25′48″W / 45.5040°N 122.4301°W / 45.5040; -122.4301

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.