U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K
Source:
The Daily Signal
URL Source: http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/s ... esbian-couple-fines-them-135k/
Published: Jul 3, 2015
Author: Kelsey Harkness
Post Date: 2015-07-03 15:47:13 by Hondo68
Keywords: gag order on the Kleins, Christian beliefs, will not be silenced
Views: 26977
Comments: 124
Melissa Klein. (Photo: Patrick Frank) Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.” In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. “This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.” The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.” Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate. Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April. But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision. “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,” Avakian wrote. (Photo: Alex Anderson/Facebook) The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, was shocked by the provision. “Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do not agree with government sanctioned ideas.” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, called the order “outrageous” and said citizens of Oregon should be “ashamed.” “This order is an outrageous abuse of the rights of the Kleins to freely practice their religion under the First Amendment,” he said. It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America. And Commissioner Avakian’s order that the Kleins stop speaking about this case is even more outrageous—and also a fundamental violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment. Avakian would have fit right in as a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union or Red China. Oregon should be ashamed that such an unprincipled, scurrilous individual is a government official in the state. The case began in February 2013 when Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint against the Kleins for refusing to bake them a wedding cake. At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon. The Bowman-Cryers’ complaint went to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which is in charge of defending the law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics, called the Equality Act of 2007. In January 2014, the agency found the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation. In April, McCullough recommended they pay $75,000 to Rachel and $60,000 to Laurel. In order to reach the total amount, $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct. Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.” In their Facebook post, the Kleins signaled their intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of violating the cease and desist. Poster Comment: The judge told them to STFU about Christ. They're not going to.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
The prosecutor (and Oregon government) shall receive a bit of remorse about this decision to create the uproar.
They do not have a right to refuse business based on discrimination. They were paying customers who had not done anything more than gone to their dump to conduct a business transaction. They should pay the fine and not repeat the mistake. If a private business owner exercises their judgement for relationships, it has has nothing to do with government override for the exercise. Mike - do not go where you are pressing buttons.
They should pay the fine and not repeat the mistake. Say your son owned a bakery. SHould he have to bake a cake that had a pro KKK message? Or a confederate flag cake? Should a fag bakery have to bake a cake that talks about how it is your duty to kill fags from Leviticus?
The Bible gives no license to kill anyone because of their sexual orientation. As for the KKK or battle flag comment, I would bake them their cake and take their money as long as they comported themselves well in the store and had the means to pay. The Confederate battle flag is a historical flag and I would have no right to query as to the purpose or sentiments attributed to the request, and as for the KKK, they have a right to exist whether I like them or not, and I would take their money and give them their cake. A wedding cake for a marriage that was not legal?
Correct. They refused the business because it violated their religious beliefs, a right which is protected by the first amendment. The dykes should have simply gone to another bakery. They're not the only ones with rights.
Was that a movie? The Fags From Leviticus?
Well I disagree with you. But at least you're consistent so far. I think anyone should be able to refuse anyone from their business for any reason they choose. I believe that because I believe in liberty. I have a job coming up to work for two dykes. I've worked for fags before too. One had naked men pasted on his walls. That was very weird. But I would never bake a cake for a queer pretending to be married. It is fundamentally against my beliefs to participate in that charade, as it is millions of others. To force someone to do that is tyranny. The founders would never have agreed to force someone to do this. In fact they would have killed people with those ideas.
3 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
What about: refuse Christians at this privately owned establishment?
Ummmm I don't think the pro homosexual crowd even knows that word, if they do they think the definition of "fairness" means the same thing. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
GoFundMe kicked the Kleins off their site "following complaints from gay- marriage supporters". During that time, the campaign raised more than $109,000 on behalf of the Kleins, which the website said they would be able to keep. "GoFundMe cited its policy against “formal charges in defense of heinous crimes,” prompting critics to point out that the Kleins had not been charged with a crime. A few days later, GoFundMe changed the policy to include a ban on “claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.”
I don't think they should. But if someone doesn't want to do business with you. There are plenty of other places. Christians are Holier then non Christians. They are closer to God then non Christians. The moral code defined in the Bible is superior to all other moral codes.
So, their money spends too? I don't get the distinction you make between recognizing their relationship for profit as you do versus baking a commercial cake for the same type of people. Is it the marriage thingy? If the dykes were married would you still do the work for them? Maybe you could try to convert them.
Who cares? It is the Internet.
What does that mean exactly?
Are you saying Buckeroo is part of the homosexual crowd? Are you also saying he doesn't know what tyranny was even though it is staring him in the face? Is buckeroo just a runt of a wolf making a show by huffing and puffing and blowing?
That means that non Christians don't know God. Only Christians do. Therefore Christians are holier then non christians. I say that to mean true Christians not everyone who claims to be.
Well, of course, according to your esteemed opinion it is ALL my fault. Man, I am humbled; yet, I have never advocated homosexual rights like your pal, yukon.
Welcome to the new America where groups of psychotics can impose their irrationality of your life and childish simpleton lawyers and judges can demonstrate their pseudointellectual prowess by helping them do it. This entire nation is being backed into a corner of childishness, mental illness, stupidity, and subverions by missionaries showing evidence of the preceeding.
It is the forcing you to participate in a religious ceremony that you don't agree with. Prohibiting you from your free exercise of religion as established in the first amendment.
Are you a Christian, Stone?
You're getting off topic. But that thread I deleted the other day. Where you practically confessed that it was you that hacked Yukon. I should undelete it and chage the title to "Is This Buckeroos confession about Yukon". Yeah things can be undeleted.
Please feel free to exercise your "divine" power and invite me back to challenge you and everyone just how it all works.
Yes. But not always a good one. I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I believe that sincerely. I do things wrong and I pray and ask for forgiveness. Sometimes on here I say some stuff that doesn't represent me being a christian to well. Often the destruction of our culture makes me quite angry and you can see it in my posts.
So a web site can discriminate because "it's the Internet", but a bakery can't. You just make this shit up as you go along?
They can perform their practices for business, as they see it. You are going over the slippery slope, whitesands.
hold on! lets get some Holy Water sprinkled on you before it is too late.
The State cannot force someone to violate their religious beliefs. They could have bought their cake anywhere - the two carpet munchers were looking for a payday just like the one this liberal asshole awarded them. Pain and suffering? Give me a frigging break. Not Baking a Wedding Cake Leads to $135,000 Fine for Hurting Couple's Feelings It was a cake. A cake! She has not been rejected from society. There is no actual argument or evidence presented that their ability to live their lives fully has been impaired by one rejection. In fact, they got a free cake from semi-famous television baker Duff Goldman out of the publicity the state wanted to fine the Kleins for. She sounds like she was driven nearly to suicide because she was rejected by a couple of bakers. I wonder what would have happened if these ladies stumbled across the Phelps family somewhere. They would end up in comas! Much of the ruling is written in this vein, even though it also acknowledges at one point that testimony from one of the women was prone to exaggeration, and she gave testimony that was contradicted by others. They only considered her testimony when it was completely undisputed or corroborated by others. The thing that is most repellant about this case is the gag order imposed on them. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much If I owned your chit-chat channel I would have perm banned you, ISP and IP a long, long tyme ago.
They were paying customers who had not done anything more than gone to their dump to conduct a business transaction. The right of free association is a cherished civil right. If you don't like someone, for whatever reason, you don't have to associate with them. Discrimination is essential to survival. If you don't discriminate you might end up eating a turd, instead of your burrito. If you're commercial artist do you have to draw a picture of Muhammad if someone asks?
Isn't this religious persecution and can not one take this to the supreme court? Yes I know that the supremes are on a devilish roll right now but clearly this is over the top and a violation of their civil rights.
Ferret, snitch, bootlicker....PERFECT name for you.
I understand that Walmart will make you a cake with the ISIS flag. If you want the Confederate flag cake you're out of luck.
You're getting off topic. But that thread I deleted the other day. Where you practically confessed that it was you that hacked Yukon. I should undelete it and chage the title to "Is This Buckeroos confession about Yukon". Yeah things can be undeleted. That was a MOST interesting thread....yes, it was!
Pretty sure buck was kidding. He's not computer savvy enough to pull off a stunt like that. The blame for the entire incident lays squarely on the shoulders of yukon and his reprehensible henchmen. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much
Real classy Stone. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much If someone says they would ban me. Then I ban them instead.
This is inaccurate. The "Judge" spoken of was an Administrative Law Judge (an employee of an administrtive agency). An ALJ used to be called a Hearing Officer. He is not part of the judicial branch and does not preside over trials. As described below, the ALJ did not impose the cited cease and desist order, the Commissioner did. In this case, [from the article] Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweetcakes%20signed%20PO.pdf PDF (112 pp.) ALJ proposed order at 110-111: (underline added) A. NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.850, and to eliminate the effects of the violation of ORS 659A.403 by Respondent Aaron Klein, and as payment of the damages awarded, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to deliver to the Administrative Prosecution Unit of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, 1045 State Office Building, 800 NE Oregon Street, Portland, Oregon 97232-2180, a certified check payable to the Bureau of Labor and Industries in trust for Complainants Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer in the amount of: 1) ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($135,000), representing compensatory damages for emotional and mental physical suffering, to be apportioned as follows: plus, Rachel Bowman-Cryer: $75,000 2) Interest at the legal rate on the sum of $135,000 from the date of issuance of the Final Order until Respondents comply with the requirements of the Order herein. B. NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.850 and ORS 659A.855, and to further eliminate the effect of the violation of ORS 659AA03 by Respondent Aaron Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from denying the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of Sweetcakes by Melissa to any person based on that person's sexual orientation. DATED this 21st day of April, 2015. Alan McCullough, Note the absence of any gag order in the Proposed Order of the ALJ. It was later inserted into the Final Order by Commissioner Brad Avakian. The ALJ who conducted the hearing submitted his Proposed Order to the Oregon Commissioner of Labor and Industry (BOLI) who issued the Final Order. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf Sweetcakes Final Order by Oregon Bureau of Labor and Insustry Commissioner Brad Avakian, at 42-43, ORDER. Pdf (122 pp.) [underline added] NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A850(4), and to eliminate the effects of the violation of ORS 659A403 by Respondent Aaron Klein, and as payment of the damages awarded, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to deliver to the Administrative Prosecution Unit of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, 1045 State Office Building, 800 NE Oregon Street, Portland, Oregon 97232-2180, a certified check payable to the Bureau of Labor and Industries in trust for Complainants Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer in the amount of: 1) ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($135,000), representing compensatory damages for emotional, mental and physical suffering, to be apportioned as follows: Rachel Bowman-Cryer: $75,000 2) Interest at the legal rate on the sum of $135,000 from the date of issuance of the Final Order until Respondents comply with the requirements of the Order herein. B. NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A850(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violation of ORS 659A403 by Respondent Aaron Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from denying the full and equalaccommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of Sweetcakes by Melissa to any person based on that person's sexual orientation. C. NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A850(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violations of ORS 659A409 by Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby FINAL ORDER (Sweetcakes, ##44-14 & 45-14) - 42 - - - - - orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed , any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation. DATED this 2 day of July, 2015. Brad Avakian, Commissioner Issued ON: July 2, 2015 FINAL ORDER (Sweetcakes, ##44-14 & 45-14) - 43 http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409 [underline added] § 659A.409 Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited • age exceptions Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint Government prohibition of speech in advance of publication. One of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the freedom from prior restraint. Derived from English Common Law, the rule against prior restraint prohibits government from banning expression of ideas prior to their publication. The rule against prior restraint is based on the principle that Freedom of the Press is essential to a free society. Attempts by government to obtain a prior restraint have largely been unsuccessful. The rule against prior restraint was undisputed for much of U.S. history. The landmark case of Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), finally settled the issue, with the U.S. Supreme Court finding that the First Amendment imposed a heavy presumption against the validity of a prior restraint. In Near, the Court struck down a Minnesota state law that permitted public officials to seek an Injunction to stop publication of any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine, or other periodical." The statute was used to suppress publication of a small Minneapolis newspaper, the Saturday Press, which had crudely maligned local police and political officials, often in anti-Semitic terms. The law provided that once a newspaper was enjoined, further publication was punishable as Contempt of court. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, in his majority opinion, called the law "the essence of censorship" and declared it unconstitutional. With its decision, the Court incorporated the First Amendment freedom of the press into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This incorporation made freedom of the press fully applicable to the states. Though Hughes agreed that a rule against prior restraint was needed, he acknowledged that this restriction was not absolute. The rule would not, for example, prevent government in time of war from prohibiting publication of "the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops." Threats to national security interests are almost certain to prevail over freedom of the press, but it has proved difficult to invoke the "national security" justification. [snip] See also Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint IMHO, the Oregon law runs afoul of prior restraint and should be struck down as an unconstitutional exercise of assholedness. This does not appear to be a close call. A constitutional issue might be whether the Klein's refused service because of the sexual orientation of the customers, or because of their own firmly held religious beliefs which prevented the Kleins from performing or partaking in certain actions.
Comments (42 - 124) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
~ Mike McCarthy
#3. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
They do not have a right to refuse business based on discrimination. They were paying customers who had not done anything more than gone to their dump to conduct a business transaction.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
(Edited)
~ Mike McCarthy
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
"for refusing to bake them a wedding cake ... At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon."
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
"They do not have a right to refuse business based on discrimination."
#8. To: A K A Stone (#4)
"... your duty to kill fags from Leviticus?"
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9)
I think anyone should be able to refuse anyone from their business for any reason they choose. I believe that because I believe in liberty.
#12. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo, Liberator (#9)
is tyranny.
#13. To: hondo68 (#0)
#14. To: buckeroo (#11)
What about: refuse Christians at this privately owned establishment?
#15. To: A K A Stone (#9)
I have a job coming up to work for two dykes. I've worked for fags before too.
#16. To: misterwhite (#13)
GoFundMe kicked the Kleins off their site
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)
They are closer to God then [sic: than] non Christians.
#18. To: CZ82 (#12)
Ummmm I don't think the pro homosexual crowd
#19. To: buckeroo (#17)
They are closer to God then [sic: than] non Christians. What does that mean exactly?
#20. To: A K A Stone (#18)
#21. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
#22. To: Fred Mertz (#15)
Is it the marriage thingy?
#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)
That means that non Christians don't know God. Only Christians do. Therefore Christians are holier then non christians. I say that to mean true Christians not everyone who claims to be.
#24. To: buckeroo (#20)
Well, of course, according to your esteemed opinion it is ALL my fault. Man, I am humbled; yet, I have never advocated homosexual rights like your pal, yukon.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
#26. To: buckeroo (#23)
Are you a Christian, Stone?
#27. To: buckeroo (#16)
"Who cares? It is the Internet."
#28. To: misterwhite (#27)
but a bakery can't.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#26)
I do things wrong and I pray and ask for forgiveness.
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
They were paying customers who had not done anything more than gone to their dump to conduct a business transaction.
Respondent's denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn't supposed to be, and that she wasn't supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven. ... [She] interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life. She felt anger, intense sorrow, and shame. These are reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everybody else.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#31. To: A K A Stone (#26)
Often the destruction of our culture makes me quite angry and you can see it in my posts.
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
They do not have a right to refuse business based on discrimination.
#33. To: hondo68 (#0)
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
#35. To: hondo68 (#32)
If you're commercial artist do you have to draw a picture of Muhammad if someone asks?
#36. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Well, of course, according to your esteemed opinion it is ALL my fault. Man, I am humbled; yet, I have never advocated homosexual rights like your pal, yukon.
#37. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, buckeroo (#36)
Where you practically confessed that it was you that hacked Yukon.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#38. To: buckeroo (#31)
#39. To: A K A Stone (#38)
And you can watch as you are made fun of and not able to respond.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#40. To: Deckard (#39)
#41. To: hondo68, buckeroo, Ferret Mike, A K A Stone, misterwhite, CZ82, Fred Mertz, rlk, Deckard, justified, jeremiad, nativist nationalist, Gatlin (#0)
The judge told them to STFU about Christ. They're not going to.
Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.
PROPOSED ORDER
Laurel Bowman-Cryer: $60,000
Administrative Law Judge
Bureau of Labor and Industries ORDER
Laurel. Bowman-Cryer: $60,000
plus,
Bureau of Labor and Industries 2013 ORS, Vol. 14, Chapter 659A, (Unlawful Discrimination In Public Accommodations)
Prior Restraint
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]