Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Bakers ORDERED by state to stop speaking out against gay marriage

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.

Well said!

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.

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.

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?

Kicking out specific individuals is not the same as kicking out all members of a protected class.

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409

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.

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.403

It'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.409

The "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!*

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.

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...