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: 27135
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
Comments (1-49) not displayed.
.
.
.
#50. To: nolu chan, GrandIsland (#49)
I have absolutely no doubt he is computer savvy enought to pull it off. I have been waiting to take the hit and expecting it any time. My password remains unchanged.
Then why post your hopeless message? Might as well leave this site and eat a 3" magnum Buckyshot sandwich. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
eat a 3" magnum Buckyshot sandwich. lol Show us how it's done, pigtard! Free Bucky!
Jim Robinstone...it has a nice ring to it. You can find me at freedom4um.com if and when pebbles suspends/bans me.
I have as little doubt that no hack was pulled off by anyone.
I have absolutely no doubt he is computer savvy enought to pull it off. I have as little doubt that no hack was pulled off by anyone. Someone posted this “Fine Already” thread. What do you think happened?
I support the enforcement of this law. When I first moved to Oregon in 1972 at age eighteen, there used to be signs at stores in the Cave Junction ares that said, "No dogs or hippies allowed." In a civil society, there is no room for the growth of such cancerous and malicious bigotry that endangers thee lives, welfare and peace of mind of people like this. The above link takes you to the story of the mascot hippie statue Dutch Brothers Coffee had given that area to remind them how much damage and turmoil in the community this sort of hatred and intolerance causes. The hatred still lies smoldering beneath the surface and Dutch Brothers has decided to remove the mascot surprised this hatred and intolerance exists. Allowing places like the cake store to cause a similar wave of business bans against people to grow entire communities into 'us against them' discrimination and fratricide is something my state does not want or need. No store in Cave Junction would dare to ban someone for being targeted in such a malicious and mean spirited way that removes their felling of safety, peace of mind and right to live and function in the general community. This law helps prevent tis ffrom happening. Now you know where some of the raison d'etre for this statute. I whole hardheartedly support the state protecting small groups of citizens from being victims of this sort of commercial lynch mob mentality. I can;'t cut and past the statement from this Facebook page; but is is of course easily accessed in the link. As for the mascot issue, Dutch Brother's Coffee Co. was stupid to stir this pot again. But it served to remind all of the good sound rational ffor insuring the safe access of businesses in a community to all who wish to use them. Beginning with the Exclusion Law of 1844 enacted by the provisional government of the region, Oregon passed a series of measures designed to ban African American settlement in the territory. Historian Elizabeth McLagan describes those laws in the article below. Oregon passed exclusion laws against African Americans twice during the 1840s, considered another law in the 1850s, and in 1857 approved an exclusion clause as part of its constitution. Exclusion laws were also passed in Indiana and Illinois and considered in Ohio, but Oregon was the only free state admitted to the Union with an exclusion clause in its constitution. The first exclusion law was passed in 1844 by the Provisional Government of Oregon, the temporary governing political structure set up by the first American settlers to reach the region over the Oregon Trail. This first law included a ban on slavery and a requirement that slaveowners free their slaves. African Americans who remained in Oregon after their freedom was granted, however, would be whip-lashed and expelled. If they were caught again in the Territory within six months, the punishment would be repeated. This law was amended to substitute hard labor for whiplashing, and was repealed in 1845, before it could take effect. In 1849 another exclusion law was passed. This one allowed black residents already in Oregon to remain, but banned further African American in-migration. Ship owners were responsible for their black crew members and could be fined $500 if the crew member jumped ship and remained in Oregon. In this second version, African Americans would be arrested and then ordered to leave. This law was in effect until 1854, when, in a general housekeeping act, it was repealed. Later attempts to reintroduce it suggest that this repeal was accidental. In 1857, when a constitution was written in anticipation of statehood, a third exclusion clause was inserted, prohibiting new in-migration of African Americans, as well as making illegal their ownership of real estate and entering into contracts. They were also denied the right to sue in court. This clause, Article 1 Section 35, was subject to popular vote, as was the adoption of a ban on slavery and the entire constitution. The exclusion clause received more popular votes than the approval of the constitution or the ban on slavery. Although enabling legislation was never passed and the clause was voided by the14th and 15th Amendments passed after the Civil War, the ban remained a part of Oregon’s constitution until it was finally repealed in 1927. Oregon was largely settled by white immigrants who emigrated with their values and prejudices. Passing exclusion laws in an area far removed from sectarian conflict, the majority argued for the freeing and removal of slaves brought to Oregon Territory and favored the avoidance of the race problem altogether through this means. Jesse Applegate, who supported the repeal of the exclusion law in 1845 and opposed its inclusion in the state’s constitution, believed that many immigrants to Oregon, especially those less well-off, had strong prejudices against African Americans, whether slave or free. Born in Kentucky, he later lived in Missouri and came to Oregon in 1843. In 1878 he recalled, “Being one of the 'Poor Whites' from a slave state I can speak with some authority for that class—Many of those people hated slavery, but a much larger number of them hated free negroes worse even than slaves.” Peter Burnett, another influential immigrant, championed Oregon Territory as a place with many opportunities to start afresh and escape the problems of the eastern region. His letters from the territory were often published in newspapers, and in one he argued, “The object is to keep clear of this most troublesome class of population. We are in a new world, under most favorable circumstances, and we wish to avoid most of these great evils that have so much afflicted the United States and other countries.” He later attempted to justify this law, arguing that emigration was a privilege, not an inherent right, and not a violation of constitutional rights. Since African Americans could not vote, he reasoned, it was best to deny them residence as well. A third contemporary reason offered for excluding African Americans from Oregon was the perceived fear that Native Americans and African Americans might make common cause against whites. Samuel Thurston, delegate to Congress in 1850, detailed a scenario in which African Americans would intermarry with, civilize, and educate Native Americans, creating a strong coalition against white power. “Long and bloody wars” would be the result, and therefore “the principle of self preservation…justifies the action of the Oregon Legislature.” Whether due to imported racism, a desire to avoid problems, or fears of an anti-white alliance, Oregonians elected to secure their state against racial issues by exclusion. It is impossible to determine how many African Americans avoided Oregon because of the exclusion laws and the climate of prejudice they mirrored, but evidence suggests that, in at least three cases, African Americans of means were directly affected by these laws. George Washington Bush, a wealthy man of color who had left Missouri because of prejudice, deliberately avoided the southern section of Oregon Territory and in 1844 settled in the wilderness north of the Columbia River where the exclusion law could not be enforced. Washington was organized as a separate territory in 1853, and Bush was free to stay. Among the tiny population of Oregon's early African American settlers were two entrepreneurs who were specifically targeted for exclusion. Jacob Vanderpool, who owned three businesses in Salem, was expelled in 1851, and the same year a Portland merchant, O.B. Francis, was arrested. Although he was freed, he moved to British Columbia in 1860. Thus, African Americans of means, who might have made distinguished contributions to their own community and to Oregon, were forced or chose to go elsewhere because of the racist laws they encountered. Oregon’s constitutional exclusion clause proved resistant to repeal efforts. Anecdotal evidence suggests that African Americans coming from the South, where state law trumped federal law, saw the exclusion clause as at least an implied threat to their liberty, and so Portland’s black community lobbied hard for its removal. Beginning in 1893, a repeal resolution was introduced in the state legislature. Stalled until 1900, the repeal clause was finally submitted to the voters, where it was defeated by a small margin. Repeal resolutions were passed in 1901, 1903, and 1915 and one was narrowly defeated in the election of 1916. The Oregon Voter, a non-partisan paper, had this post-election comment: “Ignorance there was, no doubt, but the race prejudice was reflected nevertheless, and to our knowledge many voted ‘NO’ in a spirit of protest, realizing full well that the vote could have no effect on the citizenship status of the negro.” After another eleven years, the amendment was approved and in 1927 the exclusion clause was finally removed from Oregon’s constitution. Sources: Elizabeth McLagan, A Peculiar Paradise: A History of Blacks in Oregon (Portland: Georgian Press, 1980); Quintard Taylor, "Slaves and Free Men: Blacks in the Oregon Country, 1840-1860," Oregon Historical Quarterly 83:2 (Summer 1982); K. Keith Richard, "Unwelcome Settlers: Black and Mulatto Oregon Pioneers," Oregon Historical Quarterly 84:1 (Spring 1983). - See more at: www.blackpast.org/perspec...1857#sthash.8nrVeq0y.dpuf Here is another past problem with laws predicated on the notions of hatred and intolerance that once plagued the Beaver State. The central notion of the bigotry of the owners of this bakery is precisely the same as that of the old 'Black Laws of Oregon.' Such hatred and intolerance has no place in this state or the United States in general. The hatred and intolerance of a targeted minority does not sit well in my state. Religion has often been the sheepskin on the shoulders of the wolf off bigotry and hated. The religious rights of the Bakery's owners was never the real issue of substance in the the denial of service to bake that cake. Such garbage has too often been cited as a justification for the hated and intolerance of others too many times here. The lameness of the contrivance of this excuse for this unacceptable behavior by this business is baldly obvious to too many people here who have seen it used many times before to try to justify bigotry, hatred and intolerance to assign it any merit as a true argument having any true merit.. A fascinating question is: Are these judges able to silence other Christians in speaking in the bakers place? If one hundred comes and speaks will they be prosecuted or jailed? Is it possible to prosecute Christians in other states for violating gag order? How far the prosecution can go? Few months of prison or several years?
Christianity is not the target of the law. The law identified the real problem involved here is bigotry, intolerance and hatred. They would have used the same contrivance of an argument against any Christian same gender couple. I know I have no rancor towards them because of their religion. That flimsy argument is in no way why I myself support the sanctions levied against them. In fact, I have reconciled with my faith and am myself once again a practicing Christian. I rejoined the Roman Catholic faith late last year and don't in any way regret doing so. It is something I should of done years ago. Oh, please. Enough with the melodrama. Any other rational and sane person would have respected their religious beliefs and found another bakery. You support these dykes because you support their cause. Had this been a Jewish bakery which refused make a cake topped with swastika, you'd be supporting the bakery.
Then the law screwed up. The bakery was not discriminating against the dykes. They could have ordered anything they wanted. And the bakery would have welcomed their business. What the bakery wouldn't do was participate in something (gay marriage) that went against their religious beliefs. Ever hear the phrase, "Hate the sin, love the sinner"? As a Roman Catholic myself, that is what I was taught. But Christians can separate the sin from the sinner. Homosexuals can't (or won't). To them, criticizing their sinful behavior is exactly the same as criticizing them as a person. What sane person thinks this way?
Which has lead you to becoming a wanabe tyrant trying to force people to worship your god... NO, you can't let people live in peace, if they disagree with you. You're on a jihad to make them slaves, and force them to bake you gay wedding cakes. 1) Intolerant? YES 2) Bigoted? YES 3) Hateful? YES
Marriage for all is not an ideology that attacks the right to exist of these woman. It is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Millions of Jews were genealogically murdered by Nazis in the commission of the Shoah. The woman did not come into the bakery to bait or bedevil the owners, they just wanted a cake baked for them. If a Nazi wants to go into a Jewish bakery for a cake I support his or her right to peacefully buy one from it. But if they want to bait the establishment with a logo for an ideology of Antisemitism that has that much blood on it, you are right; I would support a well justified refusal to shun such obvious Jew-baiting. We don't know that. Based on their response to being denied, it's doubtful. Remember, same-sex marriage was not legal in Oregon at the time. "Marriage ... is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution." It is now. Not back then. That argument has no merit. "I would support a well justified refusal to shun such obvious Jew-baiting." And what if the dykes knew the owners of the bakery were deeply religious and did this intentionally to hurt them for being "bigots"? Is your version of the law based on intent? Or ideology.
I remember this story when it first came out. They were quite blindsided and hurt by the refusal by the bakery. They had no ax to grind when they sought to conduct normal business with the establishment.
Marriage is for normal people. Aids is for faggots.
That is because you are a hypocrite. By the way Mike. I hate faggots. If you come here and push the faggot agenda you will be gone. Just so you know.
GAY=Got AIDS Yet?
Back then, the bakery's refusal had no merit. All these woman wanted was a cake celebrating their commitment to each other. The establishment had no justification in using a flimsy argument of this nature to justify bigotry toward these customers. That's what they said all right. But I'm guessing they knew they weren't going to get $135,000 if they admitted they targeted the bakery for their religious beliefs. Had they not found one single bakery in town to bake them a cake for their (illegal) wedding, they'd have a reason for being distraught. Even then, it's only a f**king cake. It's not like they were thrown in jail. If they say it was about more than the cake, then they're practically admitting they did this intentionally.
If the women came in and wanted a cake saying, "send down another one, we'll nail him up too," they would of very likely been baiting the owners of the Bakery. If they just wanted the normal variety of cake bake there, they had a right to expect the establishment to bake it. As for your personal problems with mindless hatred and the propensity to bait, that is your problem. I am here stating my opinions, if the free expression of them bothers you, by all means, ban me. That is your prerogative. But a hypocrite with a real good justification. Then again, real good justifications define hypocrites, don't they?
Mike is being deceptive. He knows they targeted them.
Have a citation to back this flimsy assertion? I would just love to see it. He's getting to the point where he wants to behead posters who support equal rights for all. ISIStoned runs this joint.
Forcing people to pretend faggots are married isn't equal justice. This site is for liberty. Not tyranny, If you support tyranny. You will most likely be gone.
Actually, I saw them interviewed on TV and read the story when it occurred. What was obvious was their surprise and hurt by this display of bigotry and intolerance by this bakery. A fool belleves liars. You just want to believe them. I want them to go Bungie Jumping with a hemp rope around their neck. Voluntarily leave the worlde to make it a better place.
Actually that is the governments job.
Could you explain this to me? Did they call them fags and laugh to their face or something?
Put up, or shut up. Your personal problem involving your fondness to try to be a petty tyrant is just nothing I lose sleep over. Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks. Real freedom is not being forced to cater to any customer in the PRIVATE business industry. My rights as a business owner OUT TRUMP your over sensitized "everyone is equal" libtard queer feelings. There are plenty of fag bakers... the fags can go there. It's called a FREE MARKET driven by consumer demand. If there isn't enough fag business to create the demand to run a profitable Boner Bakery... then it just sucks to be a pickle kisser. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I agree. But that's not what they wanted, was it? They wanted a wedding cake for their dyke wedding. That is not a "normal" variety of cake (and I don't expect it to be normal for quite some time, if ever.) Why didn't they simply order a multi-tiered cake? I mean, absent the traditional bride and groom figures on the top, that's all a wedding cake is. Then they could look around for a bride and bride topping and voilà, a "gay" wedding cake. Nope. They wanted an in-your-face confrontation with the religious owners. They wanted the owners to know it was for their wedding. And they wanted this bakery to make it.
This went to the courts to sort that out and the ruling in their favor when all was said and done. Why does this need to be explained to you?
"I'd like to thank the Academy for this award ..."
It bothers us because those in charge haven't executed the people who made the incorrect decision yet. Comprende fago.
Even if they did, do you think these two dykes never heard that before?
They came in with only the opinion that their very reasonable request for a cake commemorating their relationship would be accommodated with no disparaging judgement made regarding it. The Bakery did not try to negotiate a change to the cake's format based on any expression of reluctance to do what they wished based on religious belief. If you are trying to make your business work and you actually have no sense of bigotry toward the customers, this would be reasonable to see them do if indeed this was a real religious conflict with them with on personal axe to grind against this couple. The Bakery just flat out refused the business. The claim of an objection based on religious ideology ultimately got ruled by the court to not have merit. Yes. That explains nothing. I don't see what they did to be called bigot and intolerant? Which by the way is not unconstitutional either. You do have the right to be both as long as you are not working for the government of the people.
You believe that sitting leaders of a branch of the Federal Government that do not agree with you should die? Interesting.
Comments (91 - 124) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#51. To: Fred Mertz (#48)
trying to decrease this traffic by 10 or 20 percent.
#52. To: GrandIsland, Fred Mertz, Deckard, hope 'n change, 3 inch yukon shot (#51)
our hopeless message?
#53. To: Deckard (#46)
We can call you Jim Rob then.
#54. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland (#50)
I have absolutely no doubt he is computer savvy enought to pull it off.
#55. To: nolu chan (#54)
(Edited)
#56. To: nolu chan (#41)
(Edited)
The ;'about' page
~ Mike McCarthy
#57. To: nolu chan (#54)
The Black Laws of Oregon, 1844-1857
~ Mike McCarthy
#58. To: Ferret Mike (#56)
I support the enforcement of this law
#59. To: A Pole (#58)
~ Mike McCarthy
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#56)
"for being targeted in such a malicious and mean spirited way that removes their felling of safety, peace of mind and right to live and function in the general community."
#61. To: Ferret Mike (#59)
"The law identified the real problem involved here is bigotry, intolerance and hatred."
#62. To: Ferret Mike, slavemaster (#59)
the real problem involved here is bigotry, intolerance and hatred
Dutch Brothers hippie mascot idol (false god)
#63. To: misterwhite (#60)
Had this been a Jewish bakery which refused make a cake topped with swastika, you'd be supporting the bakery.
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
"The woman did not come into the bakery to bait or bedevil the owners, they just wanted a cake baked for them."
#65. To: misterwhite (#64)
#66. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
Marriage for all
#67. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
you are right; I would support a well justified refusal to shun such obvious Jew-baiting.
#68. To: A K A Stone (#66)
Aids is for faggots.
#69. To: misterwhite (#64)
It is now. Not back then. That argument has no merit.
#70. To: Ferret Mike (#65)
"They were quite blindsided and hurt by the refusal by the bakery."
#71. To: A K A Stone (#67)
That is because you are a hypocrite.
#72. To: A K A Stone (#67)
"That is because you are a hypocrite."
#73. To: misterwhite (#70)
But I'm guessing they knew they weren't going to get
#74. To: misterwhite (#70)
If they say it was about more than the cake, then they're practically admitting they did this intentionally.
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#71)
I am here stating my opinions, if the free expression of them bothers you, by all means, ban me. That is your prerogative.
#76. To: Fred Mertz (#75)
#77. To: A K A Stone (#73)
Mike is being deceptive. He knows they targeted them.
#78. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
#79. To: Fred Mertz (#75)
t where he wants to behead posters who support
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
What was obvious was their surprise and hurt by this display of bigotry and intolerance by this bakery.
#81. To: A K A Stone (#76)
You will most likely be gone.
#82. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
(Edited)
The woman did not come into the bakery to bait or bedevil the owners, they just wanted a cake baked for them.
#83. To: Ferret Mike (#71)
"If they just wanted the normal variety of cake bake there, they had a right to expect the establishment to bake it."
#84. To: Justified (#80)
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
"What was obvious was their surprise and hurt by this display of bigotry and intolerance by this bakery."
#86. To: Ferret Mike (#84)
This went to the courts to sort that out and the ruling in their favor when all was said and done. Why does this need to be explained to you?
#87. To: Justified (#80)
"Did they call them fags and laugh to their face or something?"
#88. To: misterwhite (#83)
#89. To: Ferret Mike (#84)
This went to the courts to sort that out and the ruling in their favor when all was said and done. Why does this need to be explained to you?
#90. To: A K A Stone (#86)
It bothers us because those in charge haven't executed the people who made the incorrect decision yet.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]