Another bakery in Oregon has refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple for their commitment ceremony. Erin Hanson and Katie Pugh reached out to Fleur Cakes for a wedding cake for their celebration near Mt. Hood, but owner Pam Regentin made it quite clear she would not serve them because they are a same-sex couple. KATU News reporter Dan Cassuto reached Regentin by phone to confirm she understood she was clearly violating Oregon’s nondiscrimination law:

CASSUTO: Pam, are you aware that it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation if you have a business that serves the public.

REGENTIN: I believe that I have the liberty to live by my principles.

Watch the news segment:

The story parallels a similar instance of discrimination from earlier this year, when Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to provide a same-sex couple a cake because “marriage is a religious institution ordained by God.” The Oregon Labor Bureau is still processing a complaint filed by that couple.

Both these cases highlight how so-called “religious liberty” actually has nothing to do with marriage equality, because same-sex marriages are not even legally recognized in Oregon. The distinction between whether a business will serve a gay customer and whether a business will serve a gay marrying couple is insignificant, because either way, it’s discrimination based on sexual orientation. A Washington florist tried to make this same distinction, and now faces lawsuits from both the customers she refused service to and the state attorney general.

In November of 2014, voters in Oregon will have the chance to vote for an amendment to the state constitution that repeals the ban on same-sex marriage and allows for full marriage equality. A new poll from DHM Research shows that 18 months ahead of that vote, a plurality — 49 percent — of Oregon voters support this change, while just 42 percent oppose it. Still, there are 9 percent who are unsure of the change, which means there are still many minds that could change. As John McCarter points out at the Daily Kos, there is reason to be optimistic that so many would actually commit to the amendment, a result that jibes with a Public Policy Polling poll from December that showed 54 percent supporting marriage equality over all.

Judge Harry Pregerson and his wife of 64 years, Bernardine.

A federal judge has ruled that an Oregon public defender, Alison Clark, is entitled to health benefits for her same-sex spouse under the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits. Judge Harry Pregerson ruled that the denial of benefits was a violation of the Employment Dispute Resolution Plan’s nondiscrimination protections, arguing that both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage (Measure 36) are unconstitutional. Clark’s marriage, he concluded, should be recognized under both state and federal law.

Though Pregerson did not specifically rule on Measure 36, he thoroughly debunked three possible objectives behind the law, pointing out that none of them provide any rational basis for banning same-sex couples from marrying:

The first possible objective of Measure 36 is to encourage responsible procreation. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying, however, will have no effect on the procreation of opposite-sex couples in Oregon. Further, same-sex couples can and do procreate — through adoptions, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Denying same-sex couples the status of marriage will not discourage their procreation. Instead, it will lead to children being born out of wedlock to these couples. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage is not rationally related to the promotion of responsible procreation.

A second possible objective of Measure 36 is to ensure that children will be raised in stable and enduring families. Even if it is true that children are better off if their parents are married, this objective is not furthered by banning same-sex marriages. First, banning same-sex marriage cannot reasonably be believed to improved the stability of families headed by opposite-sex spouses. Moreover, without same-sex marriages, fewer couples can be married and hence, there are fewer couples who can provide a stable, marital environment for their children.

A third possible objective of Measure 36 is to “proceed with caution” in changing the definition of marriage under Oregon law. If Measure 36 had been a temporary suspension of same-sex marriage that would allow the state legislature or the people of Oregon to consider the issue thoroughly, Measure 36 may have been rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution. But, as with California’s Proposition 8, “the purpose and effect… was to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry… not to suspend or study that right.” As a permanent and wholesale ban of same-sex marriage, Measure 36 is not rationally related to the goal of proceeding with caution.

An effort is already underway to repeal Measure 36 through a ballot initiative in 2014.

Pregerson ruled that the United States Court must submit Clark’s request to the appropriate health insurance carrier to provide benefits for her wife, and provide the same to any future same-sex couples who apply. If the Office of Personnel Management blocks this, he also ruled that Clark should then be granted monetary relief, including “back pay and associated benefits.”

Pregerson’s ruling does little to change how the Supreme Court may rule on DOMA or California’s Proposition 8 in the coming months, but it is still a symbolic blow to the validity of such discriminatory measures.

Advocates in Oregon are working to amend the state’s constitution to allow same-sex marriage through a ballot initiative in 2014. Opponents are already trying to disrupt this process by challenging the language for the proposed initiative. The Oregon Family Council argued that the proposal would require every governmental agency in Oregon to issue marriage licenses instead of just county clerks, and thus that should be reflected in the title.

The attorney general’s office rejected this argument, pointing out that even if the measure could be interpreted to require such a change, it’s certainly not the purpose of the initiative. Though Basic Rights Oregon is still considering two possible versions for the initiative, the title for either will read:

Amends Constitution: Recognizes marriage between couples of same gender; protects clergy/religious institutions’ refusal to perform marriages.

The title can still be appealed to the state Supreme Court, so the legal wrangling may not be over yet. At any rate, it’s the first of what could be many victories for Oregon’s champions of equality.