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: 27141
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 (1-59) not displayed.
.
.
.
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#56)
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. Their refusal was based on their religious beliefs. Meaning, their refusal had merit back then, has merit today, and will have merit in the future. "All these woman wanted was a cake celebrating their commitment to each other." Then order a traditional wedding cake and replace the figures on top. IF that was "all they wanted". But that wasn't all they wanted and you know that. Next you'll be telling me that "all Rosa Parks wanted" was a better view. "in using a flimsy argument" People have died for their religious beliefs. Where do you get "flimsy"? "to justify bigotry toward these customers." Do you read what I post? Their "bigotry" was directed towards the behavior (gay marriage), not to the customers.
That is not what I said. I said the tyrants who made an evil decision should be executed by the government.
As a business in Oregon, the establishment had an obligation to accommodate customers desiring to conduct normal business with it. If they truly had a religious objection, they should of sought to do what businesses have always done; tried to negotiate a solution to any perceived problems that stood in the way of conducting a business transaction. had they done so, it would of kept them from running afoul with the law. Their ignorance of this aspect of business law caused them a great deal of heartbreak. That is unfortunate. However, ignorance of the law and how it works is never an excuse. Jesus loves people whether they are heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. That is one thing L clearly know. Jesus will send every faggot that says it is not a sin to hell. Involuntary servitude/slavery was outlawed long ago. It is good to know you support slavery. Go tell that to your halfling.
OK. So you believe this. You believe these were reasonable people with a reasonable request. Wouldn't a reasonable person recognize a deeply-held religious belief different than their own and respect that belief? If you had observant Jews over for dinner, would you serve them pork? Why not? It's an old, outdated religious belief that has no place in modern culture. Hell, it's practically your duty to show them the error of their ways and demonstrate that pork is safe. Right? Or would you respect those beliefs, shrug your shoulders, and serve something else?
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi So says the petty tyrant...
For a Nazi ceremony? Decorated with swastikas?
So now you're in support of militant fascism, Mike? The Law of the Mob? What happened to "choice"? "Freedom of speech"? Of "association"? Of respect of and for religion? WHO by what authority has assumed themselves the [fascist] arbiter of the new definitions of "obligation"? "Accommodation"? And "normal"? ALL the terms you've used are...RELATIVE. They are based on the new definitions and an expressed obligation for PRIVATE business to be held hostage and its principles compelled to be compromised by the State. The new definitions and "law" are purely contrived, ironically violating the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" of the 14th Amendment, as well as 1st Amendment. [Christian bakers should have] tried to negotiate a solution to any perceived problems that stood in the way of conducting a business transaction. had they done so, it would of kept them from running afoul with the law. Bake me a cake that sez "Homos Are Freakin' Perverts". WHAT? You have a "perceived problem" wit dat?? Hmmm. You're intolerant, eh? HERE'S a problem right here: Laws are being enacted by partisan liberal hacks that are NOT rightfully and legally created by legislation, but by black-robed tyrants of the judiciary "running afoul" of the Constitution.
For a Nazi ceremony? Decorated with swastikas? HA! Pole, you busted Mike, the Cake-Nazi. NO CAKE FOR YOU!
Comments (101 - 124) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"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.
#91. To: Ferret Mike (#69)
"Back then, the bakery's refusal had no merit."
#92. To: Ferret Mike (#90)
You believe that sitting leaders of a branch of the Federal Government that do not agree with you should die? Interesting.
#93. To: Justified (#89)
#94. To: A K A Stone (#92)
I said the tyrants who made an evil decision should be executed by the government.
#95. To: Ferret Mike (#94)
#96. To: Ferret Mike (#88)
They came in with only the opinion that their very reasonable request for a cake ..."
#97. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike (#95)
This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand.
#98. To: Ferret Mike (#63)
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.
#99. To: Ferret Mike (#93)
As a business in Oregon, the establishment had an obligation to accommodate customers desiring to conduct normal business with it.
#100. To: A Pole, Ferret Mike (#98)
("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.")
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]