sweetcakesbuilding.jpg

Sweet Cakes by Melissa was a Gresham bakery that ran into trouble with with state labor officials when it refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The owners now operate the business out of their home.

(Everton Bailey Jr./The Oregonian)

As I write this, the No. 1 commented-upon story on OregonLive is my piece from last Thursday

expanding religious exemptions for businesses.

In Arizona, of course, national controversy

that would allow individuals and businesses to refuse to do business with someone if they had religious objections.

In Oregon, social conservatives are working on a proposed initiative for the November ballot that

for gay weddings and commitment ceremonies if they say it violates their religious beliefs.

The comments provide an interesting back-and-forth on the reasons for and against these types of measures -- whether we're talking the Arizona bill or the more narrowly drafted initiative in Oregon.

There's also an interesting subtext to this. For more than a year, it's been assumed that Oregon will be a major battle ground this November in the debate over gay marriage.

Gay rights backers say they've gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot while building a strong campaign organization.

But that might not wind up being the big issue related to gay marriage on the November ballot.

A federal judge in Eugene is

banning same-sex marriage. Given the many rulings by other federal judges around the country --

-- it wouldn't be surprising if U.S. District Judge Michael McShane strikes down the Oregon prohibition.

And since

, there may not be anyone with the legal standing to appeal the decision.

As a result, Oregon United for Marriage -- which is promoting the gay marriage initiative -- says it might not be necessary to go to the ballot in November. The group's campaign manager, Mike Marshall, says that the group feels an urgency about turning its attention to fighting the initiative put forth by a group called Friends of Religious Freedom.

Meanwhile, it seems like opponents of gay marriage are also focusing on their measure to expand religious exemptions for businesses. Shawn Lindsay, the general counsel for Friends of Religious Freedom, even talks about it as an expansion of the exemption in the gay marriage initiative for religious clergy.

It's too early to tell, but it wouldn't be surprising if the debate in November is not over gay marriage, but what the law says about providing commercial services to same-sex nuptials.

Here's a small sample of the more-than 640 comments -- many of which buttress my point -- discussing the Arizona and Oregon measures.

Here's one that expresses support for both gay marriage and the religious exemption initiative.

writes:

I have no problem with gays getting married (or not getting married and just living together). Homosexuality might very well be Mother Nature's way of taking care of the overpopulation problem since heterosexuals don't seem willing to control it.



The WHY I wonder about is why the women who wanted a cake from Sweet Cakes couldn't simply take their business elsewhere. Why couldn't the gay couple in New Mexico simply find another photographer (there's no shortage of photographers).



Why have we become a country where the minute somebody doesn't get their way they run to the government and demand their rights?



As the various gay couples involved in wedding cases will eventually find out, marriage is about compromise.

doesn't buy that argument:

Since when is religious belief an excuse to discriminate or otherwise break the law? There isn't any way to "narrowly draw" a law that creates a religious right to discriminate: discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you justify it. The thing about all of this is that when you choose to participate in public life (such as opening a business) you have to participate according to the same rules and regulations which everyone else has to follow. Playing the victim card because you aren't allowed to discriminate is pathetic.

-- Jeff Mapes