The First Amendment apparently does not apply to opponents of gay marriage in Oregon.
Two Christian bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple had already been ordered to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple, and now they’re being prohibited from speaking out about their opposition to gay marriage as well.
Aaron and Melissa Klein were issued a cease-and-desist order by the labor commissioner in Oregon after being interviewed by the Family Research Council, according to the Daily Signal.
“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion nor freedom of speech.”
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian placed the effective gag order on the Kleins, saying their vocal objection to gay marriage was directly related to their “discrimination” against homosexuals.
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’ refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation.”
The cease-and-desist order said the Kleins could be prohibited from speaking about their religious views because their former business is a place of “public accommodation.”
“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” [Administrative Law Judge Alan] Avakian wrote.
In short, because they were thought to be “discriminating” against same-sex couples while running a business, they are being prohibited by Oregon from speaking out about their reasons for doing so.
“This is a shocking result which shows the state’s relentless campaign to punish Oregonians who live and work according to their faith,” said the Kleins’ attorney, Anna Harmon. “Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas.”
The Kleins say they’re not backing down.
“He want’s to silence anyone who opposes his point of view,” Brad Klein said. “he’s doing this with the wrong Christian, because I fight back.”
By using the power of the state, Avakian is trying to strip the Kleins of nearly all the protections enumerated under the First Amendment.
He is doing so in the same week the rest of America is celebrating its independence from an overbearing and oppressive government.
Baker to government: You’re messing ‘with the wrong Christian
Goodness gracious.
It's the blind leading the blind. Right off a cliff.
what do you mean Eric, and who are the 'blind'? Short, cryptic replies seem to be growing in popularity here. You can say what you mean, but no one knows who or what you are talking about.
Sorry Sam, I'm rushed and just posted in frustration.
The blind are the people here who take every blog "news" post as gospel and repost them here over and over. I've already tried debunking this gag order nonsense on several threads. There was one just last night.
I read 174 pages of court documents about this case to find out what actually happened. And the owners of Sweetcakes were NEVER told that they can't share their faith.
From what you posted on other threads, the order just prevents them from bragging about, or advertising the fact, that they don't like baking caking cakes for queers.
No shortage of "professional victims" in Oregon.
Perhaps an appeal can slap down this order, and fine. If not, perhaps it could head to the S.C., where 6 liberal and 3 conservative judges, some hawking their personal views, can decide it's fate.
We all know how that has been working out, lately. Kapeesh?
If it went to court , 10 of the twelve jurors picked would be fudgepackers
I think I posted the first link about this and didn't look into it any further than the article.
Thanks for reading the legalese Bluedreaux that stuff makes my head hurt.
This is Potlandia, not the rest of Oregon.....
We have to live with what these morons spit out all the time...
But Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
but hell, I'll bake these two Lesbos a cake... they might not like it, but I won't "discriminate" toward them just because they are Queers....don't want their feelings hurt and all...
and this Armenian Judge needs to spend less time on the bench and more time at the Gay Bathhouse of his choice in Potlandia...
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
It looks like the Kleins will not be "going down" easily.
"Going down" easily or "Going down" hard is still "Going down". If you lose a football game by 3 points or 40 points...you 'still' lose.
Who will win this battle has not yet been determined.
Who will win the war has already been determined, long ago.
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
So according to what you just wrote, I can go into ANY public building with my CCW on me even though they have a "no weapons allowed" sign posted? Kind of like a "we reserve the right to refuse service" sign since it is LEGAL, according to state law, for just about anyone in AZ to carry.
Is discrimination only against the law in Oregon? Can I put an ad in the paper saying I want to hire 10 people but none can be white, or left handed, or Christian? Can I start a restaurant and put a sign on the door and say I will not serve married people, or maybe I will only serve conceal carrying right wind Baptists?
That's an interesting thought. A "No Guns Allowed" sign on a restaurant or any other public service establishment would be the same thing: the proprietors discriminating against a legal activity based on their beliefs.
I'd bet, however, that the judge in question would find a way to twist his precedent backwards when deciding guns as opposed to gays.
In Oregon homosexuals are a protected class.
That's what the whole case hinges on.
That's an interesting thought. A "No Guns Allowed" sign on a restaurant or any other public service establishment would be the same thing: the proprietors discriminating against a legal activity based on their beliefs.
I'd bet, however, that the judge in question would find a way to twist his precedent backwards when deciding guns as opposed to gays.
A bunch of them fajjoes carry firearms too!
If "protected class" in Oregon means that the homosexuals have the same rights, access, etc. as any other individual, all well and good. It also means that they have the same right - and exposure - to comments about them that any free-speaking individual may choose to voice. If that posted statement by the Administrative Law Judge is accurate, I think it is a bluff without the force of law.
It's not a bluff. In Oregon to say that you'll discriminate against a protected class is illegal.
But it's not illegal to preach against homosexuality.
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
So why is it that casinos can kick out whoever they want, even if they aren't breaking any laws?
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
So why is it that casinos can kick out whoever they want, even if they aren't breaking any laws?
Around here casinos are built on tribal land. You play by indian rules.
It's not a bluff. In Oregon to say that you'll discriminate against a protected class is illegal. But it's not illegal to preach against homosexuality.
There remains something odd about what you say. If the report is correct, they are being gagged by the "judge" from voicing objection to gay marriage. How is voicing that illegal?
It would seem to me one thing to discriminate against a "protected" person/class by witholding services etc., but quite another to say what you will/would do under certain conditions. For example, if I were in Portland, OR and said in a public manner that "I will discriminate" with regard to a certain protected class because I believe that their behavior is immoral/improper, what law is being broken, with what would I be charged for having said that and what would be the penalty if convicted?
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
So why is it that casinos can kick out whoever they want, even if they aren't breaking any laws?
Around here casinos are built on tribal land. You play by indian rules.
Kicking out specific individuals is not the same as kicking out all members of a protected class.
According to your cite, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR A SERVICE PROVIDER TO PUBLISH A REFUSAL OF SERVICE NOTICE - BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT JOHN Q. FROM SAYING "I WILL DISCRIMINATE", FOR WHATEVER REASONS.
Can you discriminate between the two - and understand gagging? Unless what they say is directly related to an act/policy of denying services, etc., I think he cannot gag them.
I remember reading about a judge in Texas who told a kid not to mention Jesus at a school game or he would make the kid wish he had never been born. He went on to say I will have an officer of the court there to arrest you if you do it. That is illegal, but the judge has the authority.
According to your cite, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR A SERVICE PROVIDER TO PUBLISH A REFUSAL OF SERVICE NOTICE - BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT JOHN Q. FROM SAYING "I WILL DISCRIMINATE", FOR WHATEVER REASONS.
Can you discriminate between the two - and understand gagging? Unless what they say is directly related to an act/policy of denying services, etc., I think he cannot gag them.
I don't understand what you're asking.
According to your cite, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW FOR A SERVICE PROVIDER TO PUBLISH A REFUSAL OF SERVICE NOTICE - BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT JOHN Q. FROM SAYING "I WILL DISCRIMINATE", FOR WHATEVER REASONS.
Can you discriminate between the two - and understand gagging? Unless what they say is directly related to an act/policy of denying services, etc., I think he cannot gag them.
I don't understand what you're asking.
I agree.
In Oregon it's against the law for a business owner to refuse service to someone because of their sexual orientation.
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403It's also against the law for a business owner to announce that they will refuse service to anyone because of their sexual orientation.
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409The "gag order" simply enforced that law....The owners of Sweetcakes couldn't say that they would refuse service to homosexuals. The judge didn't say anything that Oregon law didn't already say.
It is NOT against the law in Oregon to preach against homosexuality. And the "gag order" didn't prevent that.
So it was a gag order in the sense that the Sweetcakes owners were told to not say things that were illegal to say.
But the "gag order" didn't tell them to not share their faith.
This is the same state that outlawed pumping one's own fuel. Let's not act so surprised.
Travis
Homo: I'm here to get my cake, please.
Baker: Okay,...here it is.
Homo: Well *humph!*,...it's got a hole in it.
Baker: Yeah,..I stuck my dick in it.
Homo: Why did you do that for?!
Baker: Can't say,...it's against the law.
Homo: Well, *humph!*
Homo: I'm here to get my cake, please.
Baker: Okay,...here it is.
Homo: Well *humph!*,...it's got a hole in it.
Baker: Yeah,..I stuck my dick in it.
Homo: Why did you do that for?!
Baker: Can't say,...it's against the law.
Homo: Well, *humph!*
How the hell did you get hold of the operational guidelines of the
"Dirty Bastids Cake Bakery, LLC" so quick,...only those who've invested are supposed to know about that part of the production process.
Oh,....wait a minute,.....I'll bet you're the new shareholder that signed aboard, with "Seminal Donation Specialist" in your list of creds.
Don't worry,...we run a tight ship here,...
Brings to mind the hairy, singlet clad short order cook smashing hamburger patties under his armpits, and chortling about the way he made donuts, ....don't it?
GTC
I believe they were willing to serve them, so nothing illegal there. I believe they simply were not about to provide them with a cake that met the generally accepted definition of a wedding cake since what they were planning did not fall under the generally accepted definition of marriage. It really doesn’t seem much different from asking an Orthodox Jewish Bakery to produce a festive Bar Mitzvah cake adorned with red, white, and black swastikas. Who’s to say that couldn’t be a choice of a young person who wanted to celebrate their entry into adulthood?
Baker should've greased the cake pan with KY and frosted the cake with Astroglide, would have been fitting for a phag wedding.
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
What about bars that may have someone who's "had enough" and refuses to serve him/her another drink?
Bartender gets sued? Or, if he does give 'em one more AND they then go out and kill someone by driving drunk, the bartender (and bar owner) can STILL be sued..
Bars DO have the right to stop serving a person if they feel they're too drunk to function.. Right? Wrong?
it's a wonder some people can function in society...
of course bartenders can refuse to serve a drunk., drunks are not a protected class in Oregon...
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
What about bars that may have someone who's "had enough" and refuses to serve him/her another drink?
Bartender gets sued? Or, if he does give 'em one more AND they then go out and kill someone by driving drunk, the bartender (and bar owner) can STILL be sued..
Bars DO have the right to stop serving a person if they feel they're too drunk to function.. Right? Wrong?
Goodness gracious, did you even try to understand what the case is about?
Homosexuals (some call them queers, dykes, faqqots, etc.) being designated a "protected class" in Portland is a joke. The remainder of the populace there seems to deserve protection from them.
Guess the Old Sign " We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" just won't work anymore, in places ran by left wing liberals....
That particular sign won't work 'anywhere' in this country anymore. Period. If one has a business that operates in the public sector, and provides goods and/or services to the public, then the business owner and/or operater has to abide by the rules/laws that are in place...like em' or not. They do have a choice though...they can abide by those rules/laws that are in place (like em' or not), or they can shut down.
What about bars that may have someone who's "had enough" and refuses to serve him/her another drink?
Bartender gets sued? Or, if he does give 'em one more AND they then go out and kill someone by driving drunk, the bartender (and bar owner) can STILL be sued..
Bars DO have the right to stop serving a person if they feel they're too drunk to function.. Right? Wrong?
Goodness gracious, did you even try to understand what the case is about?
Yes - did you???
