You might have heard in the news the last few days that Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries has fined Aaron and Melissa Klein who are owners of Sweet Cake for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries awarded $75,000 to Rachel Cryer-Bowman and $60,000 to her partner Laurel Bowman-Cryer as compensation for damages that was done to them.
Since then I have heard so much about the case that’s disputed. For instance, Gay rights activists have been saying there is no court order infringement against the Christian couple’s free speech. Defenders of the couples fired back that there is such an order.
I wanted to find out myself as to what exactly is going on. I found the document of BOLI’s decision here.
The order limiting the Christian couple’s communication can be found on page 43 of the document though I think there is much room for interpretation. I don’t think the Christian side is necessarily wrong to say that Oregon wants to limited the couple’s freedom of speech given how they used interviews Aaron Klein had with the media such as the Christian Broadcasting Network as evidence of hate speech when they were voicing their concern for their religious freedom and their view that homosexuality is a sin. I don’t think that the Christian interpretation of BOLI’s decision is too far out there.
Homosexual advocates have made it seem like the lesbian couple were mere victims of Christian right activists and that these lesbian couples were merely filing a complaint for being discriminated. However I do wonder if it truly is the case that the lesbian couple simply filing a routine complaint. Some of the Lesbian couple’s complaints seems like it didn’t necessarily follow or it can be also be applied to the Christian bakers against them as well. For instance, there is much discussion that the Lesbian couple feared being attacked and harassed with the publicity. We all know how the LGBT crowd use public harassment and attacks against those who hold to traditional view of marriage; the irony.
I think there is much axe to grind and an agenda. I say there is an agenda because at least with one of the Lesbian the agenda and the gay narrative is important enough that it comes first even before the truth and I think the BOLI’s own finding establishes that.
Throughout the document it abbreviated the initial for all the parties involved. Thus the lesbian couple Laurel Bowman-Cryer and Rachel Bowman-Cryer was called LBC and RBC respectively with the Christian owner of the bakery being AK and MK.
On page 21 of the document one find the following concerning Laurel Bowman-Cryer’s integrity:
LBC was a very bitter and angry witness who had a strong tendency to exaggerate and over-dramatize events. On cross examination, she argued repeatedly with Respondents’ counsel and had to be counseled by ALJ to answer the questions asked of her instead of editorializing about the denial of service and how it affected her. Her testimony was inconsistent in several respects with more credible evidence. First she testified that she had a ‘major blowout’ and ‘really bad fight’ with A. Cryer between January 17 and January 21, 2013. In contrast, A. Cryer testified, when asked if he fought with LBC, ‘I wouldn’t say we fought.’ He also testified that this case did not affect his relationship with LBC. Second, she testified that her blood pressure spiked in the hospital to 210/165 on February 1, 2013, when she learned that her DOJ complain had hit the media, requiring the immediate attention of a doctor and four nurses. Her treating doctor’s report notes that she was upset and crying about her situation hitting the news, but there is no mention of a blood pressure spike. Third, she testified that the media was standing out her and RBC’s apartment on February 1 2013, when she talked to RBC from the hospital. RBC, who was at the apartment at that time, testified that the media were not outside their apartment at that time. Fourth, LBC testified that RBC stayed in bed the rest of the day after she returned from the cake tasting at Sweetcakes. In contrast, A. Cryer testified that he, LBC, and RBC had a 30 minute conversation that evening. Like RBC, the forum has only credited her testimony about media exposure when she testified about specific incidents. The forum has only credited LBC’s testimony when it was either (a) undisputed, or (b) disputed but corroborated by other testimony.
It sounds to me that Laurel Bowman-Cryer has a pattern of lying. Whenever truth is sacrificed for an ideological cause, we must be willing to call such individual out. Shame on her.