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: 27154
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 89.
#41. To: hondo68, buckeroo, Ferret Mike, A K A Stone, misterwhite, CZ82, Fred Mertz, rlk, Deckard, justified, jeremiad, nativist nationalist, Gatlin (#0)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mike is being deceptive. He knows they targeted them.
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.
Could you explain this to me? Did they call them fags and laugh to their face or something?
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?
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.
#93. To: Justified (#89)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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
#56. To: nolu chan (#41)
(Edited)
The ;'about' page
#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."
#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)
#70. To: Ferret Mike (#65)
"They were quite blindsided and hurt by the refusal by the bakery."
#73. To: misterwhite (#70)
But I'm guessing they knew they weren't going to get
#77. To: A K A Stone (#73)
Mike is being deceptive. He knows they targeted them.
#80. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
What was obvious was their surprise and hurt by this display of bigotry and intolerance by this bakery.
#84. To: Justified (#80)
#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?
Replies to Comment # 89.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 89.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]