1

3
4
5

6
7
8

BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES

OF THE STATE OF OREGON

9
10

In the Matter of:

11

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

12

on behalf of RACHEL CRYER,

Complainant,

13

Case No. 44-14

RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14

15

16

v.

Oral Argument Requested

17
18
19

MELISSA KLEIN, dba SWEET CAKES

BY MELISSA,

20
21

22

and AARON WAYNE KLEIN, individually

23

as an Aider and Abettor under ORS

24

659A.406,

Respondents.

25

26
27

In the Matter of:

28

Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

29

on behalf of LAUREL BOWMAN CRYER,

Complainant,

30

Case No. 44-15

RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

31
32

Oral Argument Requested

33

34
35
36

MELISSA KLEIN, dba SWEET CAKES

BY MELISSA,

37

38

and AARON WAYNE KLEIN, individually

39

as an Aider and Abettor under ORS

40

659A.406,

41

Respondents.

42

43

Page 1- RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HERBERT G. GREY

Attorney At Law
4800 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 320
Beaverton, OR 97005-8716

(503) 641-4908

Pursuant to OAR 839-050-0150(4), Respondents AARON KLEIN, MELISSA KLEIN

and SWEET CAKES BY MELISSA move for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no

genuine issue of material fact, and Respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as

follows:

1. Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on all claims because the undisputed

facts demonstrate that neither complainant was denied services on account of their

sexual orientation;

2. Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on all claims because ORS 659A.403,

659A.406 and 659A.409 cannot survive strict scrutiny analysis necessary to abridge

10

Respondents' constitutionally-protected speech, religion and conscience rights under

11

the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions in that: (a) the statutes are neither neutral laws nor

12

generally applicable; (b) BOLI cannot demonstrate a compelling governmental

13

interest where it is undisputed that at the time of the alleged events, the official policy

14

of the state of Oregon expressed in Article XV 5a was that marriage was limited to

15

one man/one woman relationships, which BOLI as a state agency is estopped from

16

controverting; and (c) the statutes are not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling

17

government interest because they do not employ the least restrictive means;

18

3. Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on all claims because ORS 659A.403,

19

659A.406 and 659A.409 unconstitutionally limit their rights to freedom of speech and

20

their freedom not to engage in government-compelled speech protected under the

21

U.S. and Oregon Constitutions;

Page 2 - RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HERBERT G. GREY

Attorney At Law
4800 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 320
Beaverton, OR 97005-8716

(503)641-4908