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: 26900
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.
Then why did he threaten someone that they best "strengthen their PASSWORD" just last week? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Way to go, Pebbles. You're a real class act.
He's mocked the site and called it the "chit chat channel" a hundred times. If he doesn't value or respect the site, then he obviously won't care if he's outcast. Bye bye Ba ba ba ba Bucky He'll return under another ID and disrupt. That's what no-rules, anything goes anarchists do. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I can close the door on you too.
Maybe you should consider banning everyone who doesn't agree with you. We can call you Jim Rob then. "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Do you always agree with me? Why have I never threatened to ban you. Answer: Because your behavior is much different then theirs.
That's what it is, pig boy. I couple dozen people posting stuff. Now, pebbles is trying to decrease this traffic by 10 or 20 percent.
It sounds good.
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. 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!
In the past, traitors and tyrants in America WERE hung. BY THE FOUNDERS.
Nice clock-cleaning, MW. And you hardly even tried. Mike...Mike...you're returned to LF lose every argument? To come here a-bragging about your newly enforced homo-fascist "rights"?? It's sad how much you're devolved as a man of (supposed) principle.
Now wait did they refuse to bake them a wedding cake or did they say we will not serve them at all? These are 2 different subjects. If they refuse to sell them a wedding cake its their right. If they refuse to sell them anything thats another issue. If they refuse to make them a wedding cake and the commission fined them they should sue the city and the people involved for civil rights violation on religious freedom ground. The story does not specify which it is. As a business owner you have the right to refuse serve to anyone for any reason. Well unless you live in a communist state of inmates running the asylum. But thats another argument for another day.
I knew that as soon as I left for a while to get some sleep before work this afternoon I would return to find some pretty incredibly funny stuff. Your comment is especially so as I now work as a cook in a very nice restaurant. We actually are serving pulled pork we cooked in the smoker at this Country Club for our July 4th Barbecue, but I don't think we will be serving anyone with dietary laws prohibiting it though naturally. When we do large plate ups we always assemble some with differences to them because of dietary preferences. Now if I were having guests at my place I don't think I would have any problems being just as considerate. If you have any more questions, I should be back on as soon as we get done and I'm off work. Lib... Lib... people posting in forums are only expected to respond when they can and are actually at their computer or cell phone and are able to do so. I bought a Samsung S5 and it has replaced my laptop as my portable computer, which is nice as I prefer to get around this time of year on one of my motorcycles. I just bought a nice Yamaha 1300 CC V Star a couple of months ago and am having a blast on it. The smart phone is a better item to carry on it then my laptop as I don't have saddlebags for it yet. As for whether I am celebrating this high court ruling by experimenting with whom to bed down, really, be serious for once. Have a great forth and if you have anything else to say. don't worry buddy, just post it and I'll be happy to respond to it. I mean "returned" in general; We haven't seen you in a long time. I bought a Samsung S5 and it has replaced my laptop as my portable computer, which is nice as I prefer to get around this time of year on one of my motorcycles. I just bought a nice Yamaha 1300 CC V Star a couple of months ago and am having a blast on it. The smart phone is a better item to carry on it then my laptop as I don't have saddlebags for it yet. I'm pleased that you're pleased with all your hi-tech, oil-based toys. I just don't understand your "green" crusade when it seems to fly in the face of your lifestyle. To be fair, there are many far worse than you. Many livelihoods are ruined or lacking the resources to purchase what you've just purchased -- because enviro-wackos would rather save a darter snail, guppie, or tree. As for whether I am celebrating this high court ruling by experimenting with whom to bed down, really, be serious for once. Have a great forth and if you have anything else to say. don't worry buddy, just post it and I'll be happy to respond to it. Lol...ME?? "serious for once"?? Good one, Mike. Have a BBQ hot dog on me. A jumbo :-)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ just like Gore the Whore. “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.”
Because it benefits him, someone in his family or one of his friends take your pick. Phuck morals... “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.”
The fascist Green Movement OR Mikey (or all of the above?) Patently hypocritical to crusade on the Green bandwagon as you're awash in petrol-based products. Well, of course Gore is a $ell out, having already even sold out God on the abortion issue (at one time he was pro-life.)
PING to above
That's what disappoints me about Mike. He *does* have core moral values and ethics. But they seem to be a matter of (in)convenience.
Stuff like that isn't optional so I would have to say he fakes his. “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.”
I'm going to be heading to Texas this August for my vacation, and I look forward to doing so on a bike. I probably will be moving there next year to be near my daughter. I will be working doing activism when I do, but I will be working on issues involving people and their rights directly, not environmental issues. Have a great Forth and talk at you later. ;)
Such a Noble liberal trait. Care to detail what you're gonna "activist" about? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
But ... but ... YOU want pork for dinner, it's YOUR house, and their only objection is some stupid, antiquated, religious belief that is no longer necessary in the modern world. Why aren't your needs more important than their silly religion? (Rhetorical question.) In reality, I'd like to know why someone's religious freedom, protected by the first amendment, is secondary to someone's wedding cake.
You around Buck?
Well put
I don't want to argue about it at the moment as my focus is to keep developing the advocacy as I am now doing, and I have to respect the information of the folks I am dealing with. I will eventually talk about it though. It is not my judgement that any firmly held religious belief is 'antiquated' or stupid. My needs are to respect the religions of others, and to stay open minded about them. I have worked in Jewish restaurants and had many dear Jewish friends. When I know Muslims, Pagans, Mormons, and was raised and confirmed in the Catholic church. In this particular case, I have stated in previous posts as to the why I do not believe her claim to hold water. I am going to leave it at that. Fine. Then you're a hypocrite for supporting the dykes.
Is he a hypocrite or just a liar who can't keep all this talking points aligned. Also Mike like other liberal pieces of shit in Oregon doesn't support Oregon constitution. Just like he doesn't support the American one. Oregon Article 1, Section 2: All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
He sounds like a lot of millenials I know. The dykes have a constitutional right to trample the religious freedom of others if it gets in their way, but he, personally, would never do something like that. Because, you see, he's a nice guy. And he respects the right of (insert current injured minority here) to the freedoms and liberties we all enjoy (play patriotic music here). Please don't hate him. He'll say and do anything to be liked. Now, let's go back to beating up (insert leading Republican candidate here).
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.” Article XVIII is where one finds the provisional/alternate versions of Article I, section 35. As long as it is being discussed, the real thing might as well be presented. The voters approved excluding negroes and mullatoes with 87% of the vote. Mullato was a pretty broad term back then and tended to include all those with a drop of non-white blood. In 1859, this constitution was approved as creting a republican form of government. Schedule. Section I. For the purpose of taking the vote of the electors of the State for the acceptance or rejection of this constitution, an election shall be held on the second Monday of November, in the year 1857, to be conducted according to existing laws regulating the election of Delegate in Congress, so far as aplicable, except as herein otherwise provided. Sec. 2. Each elector who offers to vote upon this constitution shall be asked by the judges of election this question: "Do you vote for the constitution—yes or no ?" And also this question: " Do you vote for slavery in Oregon—yes or no?" And also this question: "Do you vote for free negroes in Oregon—yes or no?" And in the poll-books shall be columns headed, respectively, "Constitution—Yes;" "Constitution—No;" "Slavery—Yes;" "Slavery—No;" "Free negroes—Yes;" "Free negroes—No." And the names of electors shall be entered in the poll-books, together with their answers to the said questions under their appropriate heads. The abstracts of the votes transmitted to the secretary of the Territory shall be publicly opened and canvassed by the governor and secretary, or by either of them, in the absence other; and the governor, or, in his absence, the secretary, shall forthwith issue his proclamation, and publish the same in the several newspapers printed in this State, declaring the result of the said election upon each of said questions. SEC. 3. If a majority of all the votes given for and against the constitution shall be given for the constitution, then this constitution shall be deemed to be approved and accepted by the electors of the State, and shall take effect accordingly; and if a majority of such votes shall he given against the constitution, then this constitution shall be deemed to be rejected by the electors of the State, and shall be void. SEC. 4. If this constitution shall be accepted by the electors, and a majority the votes given for and against slavery shall be given for slavery, then the following section shall be added to the bill of rights, and shall be part of this constitution: And if a majority of such votes shall be given against slavery, then the foregoing shall not, but the following section shall be added to the bill of rights, and shall be a part of this constitution: And if a majority of all the votes given for and against free negroes shall be given against free negroes, then the following section shall be added to the bill of rights shall be part of this constitution: * See Bill of rights, clause 39. † See bill of rights, clause 35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Constitutional_Convention Oregon then waited on the United States Congress to accept the constitution and approve Oregon for statehood. Due to the ongoing debate over slavery in the country as the nation approached the American Civil War, the U.S. Senate did not pass legislation to bring Oregon into the Union until 1859, when Oregon became the 33rd state on February 14. The Oregon Constitution was not altered until 1902.
The save the Hippie mascot page. What law? You will need to be more specific. In think you are addressing 2013 ORS, Vol. 14, Chapter 659A. The order imposing prior restraint of free speech appears clearly unconstitutional. I do not believe that order is based on a viable interpretation of the law. An interpretation of State law that results in a violation of the Federal Constitution has a problem. 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] That law makes it unlawful to publish the described prohibited content. It cannot make it unlawful to say one intends to violate that law, at some future date uncertain, if the case arises. A violation can be punished after violation is committed. If a person's religious beliefs prevent him or her from engaging in certain acts, and he or she refuses to engage in those acts upon request, is it observation of religious beliefs or discriminition? I reckon that will be one for the courts to parse out now that they have stepped in it. As for a Federal definition of marriage, I personally do not see Federal jurisdiction. SCOTUS ruled otherwise and their opinion carries legal weight and mine does not. In case you missed it, your side won. As for enforcing the holding of the SCOTUS ruling, it passes on Federal law. The States do not have the responsibility to enforce Federal law. Consider the drug laws. It is still a violation of Federal law to smoke pot in Oregon. The State has no law against it and the State authorities do not enforce the Federal law. I'm curious as to what exactly the Federal authorities would do if one or more states just becomes obstinate and refuses to issue marriage licenses. There is no Federal right to a marriage license established in the Constitution. Consider women's right to vote. It needed an Amendment. States gave men the right to vote and withheld that same right to women. The Court determined that the Constitution did not give anyone the right to vote for President, and the State action to the contrary was not a violation of the non-existent right. Minor v. Happersett. To this day, nobody has a right to participate in the popular vote for President of the United States, as affirmed in Bush v. Gore. In popular opinion, it seems like a constitutional right, but it is solely under the purview of the States. They are not obligated to hold a popular vote. The issue of same-sex marriage would have been better and more clearly settled by a constitutional amendment, if the people chose to have such; rather than by a controversial 5-4 SCOTUS opinion. Roe v. Wade (7-2) still meets stiff resistance from the people who view it as legalizing infanticide. Doctors who view it as infanticide are not required to perform the procedure. Those who have religious objection are not required to participate in the procedure. The opinion in Roe failed to say where, precisely, the right to abortion resides within the Constitition. The same-sex marriage opinion is basically decided on a claim of a fundamental right not recognized by any state for more than two centuries after the Constitution was adopted, and for about a century and a half after the 14th Amendment was adopted. This rather cuts across the traditional view of a fundamental right. As Justice Roberts points out in dissent at 23, It is not a case decided on the Equal Protection Clause. It is decided on substantive due process. As has been indicated by many, "[t]his doctrine, which was established in Dred Scott v. Sandford, is the prime example of judges reading broad constitutional terms divorced from any textual or originalist moorings, thereby making them empty vessels into which they can pour any policy preferences they desire." If your issue is that you believe the law should be enforced, you have the SCOTUS majority in your favor. I am not quite certain how they enforce it. I can see creative ways to evade the bakery version of the law. Let us assume arguendo that AK is a baker who bakes cakes, and MK does customer service in a storefront, selling cakes. MK forms a company to bake cakes. He sells all his cakes to a single customer, MK. Following his religious beliefs, he does not make cakes with Nazi, gay, or prurient themes. MK buys the cakes from AK, LLC. AK, LLC is the sole source of supply for MK, LLC. You go into the premises of MK, LLC and attempt to order a same-sex wedding cake, a Hitler cake, or a penis cake. MK declines as her sole source of supply does not provide such cake to MK, LLC. Against whom do you have a cause of action? MK does not have a source of supply for the cake you want. She does not bake or decorate cakes. AK does not know you exist and has no business relationship with you. He sells all of his cakes to MK, LLC, a satisfied customer. MK has no desire to sue AK, LLC as she does not feel discriminated against. It would be an organizational pain in the butt for AK and MK, but it might work. With Roe, medical personnel are not required to act contrary to their honestly held religious beliefs. As an abortion is considered a constitutional right, military women would appear to enjoy such a right. In practice, it is somewhat different. http://www.stripes.com/news/will-abortion-law-change-help-female-troops-1.209513 Yet military facilities in the last decade have performed only about four abortions a year, according to a 2012 Congressional Research Office report. None of those was for rape victims. In the past 18 months, two women stationed in Europe whose lives were endangered by their pregnancies received insured abortions, according to Tricare. Both were referred to host-nation facilities. I believe that such matters should be worked out by the political branches at the appropriate level, be that State or Federal. The executive is tasked with enforcement of the law, be it the Federal drug law or same-sex marriage constitutional or statute law. When laws are adopted, or court decisions rendered, that do not enjoy the broad support of the people, it can lead to turmoil.
#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
#42. To: Deckard (#37)
He's not computer savvy enough to pull off a stunt like that.
#43. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo, yukon, Murron, mcgowanjm (#38)
And you can watch as you are made fun of and not able to respond.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#40)
#45. To: Fred Mertz (#43)
#46. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz (#45)
(Edited)
I can close the door on you too.
“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
#47. To: Deckard (#46)
Maybe you should consider banning everyone who doesn't agree with you.
#48. To: GrandIsland (#44)
He's mocked the site and called it the "chit chat channel" a hundred times.
#49. To: GrandIsland (#42)
He's not computer savvy enough to pull off a stunt like that.
Then why did he threaten someone that they best "strengthen their PASSWORD" just last week?
#50. To: nolu chan, GrandIsland (#49)
#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.
#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.")
#101. To: A K A Stone (#92)
I said the tyrants who made an evil decision should be executed by the government.
#102. To: misterwhite, Ferret Mike (#91)
#103. To: Ferret Mike (#93)
#104. To: misterwhite (#96)
If you had observant Jews over for dinner, would you serve them pork?
#105. To: Liberator (#102)
Mike...Mike...you're returned to LF lose every argument?
#106. To: Ferret Mike (#105)
Lib... Lib... people posting in forums are only expected to respond when they can and are actually at their computer or cell phone and are able to do so.
#107. To: Liberator (#106)
I just don't understand your "green" crusade when it seems to fly in the face of your lifestyle.
#108. To: Liberator (#99)
So now you're in support of militant fascism, Mike? The Law of the Mob?
#109. To: CZ82 (#107)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ just like Gore the Whore.
#110. To: Ferret Mike (#109)
#111. To: CZ82, Ferret Mike (#108)
Because it benefits him, someone in his family or one of his friends take your pick. Phuck morals...
#112. To: Liberator (#111)
core moral values and ethics. But they seem to be a matter of (in)convenience.
#113. To: Liberator (#111)
#114. To: Ferret Mike (#113)
I will be working doing activism when I do, but I will be working on issues involving people and their rights directly,
#115. To: Ferret Mike (#104)
"Now if I were having guests at my place I don't think I would have any problems being just as considerate."
#116. To: buckeroo (#31)
#117. To: misterwhite (#115)
I'd like to know why someone's religious freedom, protected by the first amendment, is secondary to someone's wedding cake.
#118. To: GrandIsland (#114)
Care to detail what you're gonna "activist" about?
#119. To: misterwhite (#115)
#120. To: Ferret Mike (#119)
"My needs are to respect the religions of others, and to stay open minded about them."
#121. To: misterwhite (#120)
Fine. Then you're a hypocrite for supporting the dykes.
#122. To: A K A Stone (#121)
"Is he a hypocrite or just a liar who can't keep all this talking points aligned."
#123. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
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 the 14th and 15th Amendments passed after the Civil War, the ban remained a part of Oregon’s constitution until it was finally repealed in 1927.
ARTICLE XVIII.
"Persons lawfully held as slaves in any State, Territory, or district of the United States under the laws thereof, may be brought into this State, and such slaves, and descendants, may be held as slaves within this State, and shall not be emancipated without the consent of their owners."
"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this State, other than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.*
"No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this State at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assemembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes, and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the State, or employ or harbor them therein."†
On November 9, 1857, the voters approved the document to serve as a state constitution upon statehood. At this same vote, measures to allow slavery and to allow free Blacks to live in the state were defeated after they had been submitted as separate items to vote on by the convention. The vote to approve the constitution by the citizens of Oregon was 7,195 for the constitution and 3,215 against the document. The vote on slavery was 2,645 to allow slavery and 7,727 to make it illegal, and the vote to make it illegal for Blacks to live in the state was 8,640 to ban them and 1,081 to allow them to live in the state. All white men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote, and after the passage a delegation was sent east to Washington, D.C. to press for statehood.
#124. To: Ferret Mike (#56)
The ;'about' page
I support the enforcement of this law.
2013 ORS, Vol. 14, Chapter 659A, (Unlawful Discrimination In Public Accommodations)
In addition to their due process argument, petitioners contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires their States to license and recognize same-sex marriages. The majority does not seriously engage with this claim.
Military hospitals and clinics worldwide in 1988 were banned by the Defense Department from providing abortions, with two exceptions: Military doctors could perform an abortion for a woman whose life was endangered by her pregnancy, and it would be paid by insurance; and, they could provide a rape victim with an abortion if she paid for it herself.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]