Final order: Sweet Cakes bakery must pay $135,000 to lesbian couple

[Free Vulcan]

Laws outlawing religious polygamy are unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

You mean because it's their religion? So you honor one religious belief over another? Isn't that a violation of the 14th amendment?

Consentual sex can only happen between consenting adults, children cannot consent to sex so I'm not all that concerned by what pedophiles may want.

Not accoring to Islam, in many parts of the world that is OK under their faith, as are incest marriages. We let teens consent to abortions, and historically in many parts of the U.S. and certainly the world child brides were common. And that's their sexual orientation, so we need to honor it under the 14th amendment.

Human non-human weddings... more hysteria. If you can figure out how to get your goat to convey consent and a willingness to enter into all the legal and economic responsibilities of marriage, then marry that goat.

If you can't marry your goat because your State frowns on it then move to Texas. Common Law marriage rules there are rather lax.

And I even forget to list incest marriages and ISIS supporters. But the point is - you said sexual orientation, but you choose to discriminate among that, as well as among religions.

So you're willing for the govt to discriminate along certain lines, so why shouldn't a business owner get to do so? Just because some unelected bureaucrats say they can't, while same bureaucrats limit and discriminate against others who want the same?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Consentual sex can only happen between consenting adults, children cannot consent to sex so I'm not all that concerned by what pedophiles may want.Human non-human weddings... more hysteria. If you can figure out how to get your goat to convey consent and a willingness to enter into all the legal and economic responsibilities of marriage, then marry that goat.

If you can't marry your goat because your State frowns on it then move to Texas. Common Law marriage rules there are rather lax.


And I even forget to list incest marriages and ISIS supporters. But the point is - you said sexual orientation, but you choose to discriminate among that, as well as among religions.

So you're willing for the govt to discriminate along certain lines, so why shouldn't a business owner get to do so? Just because some unelected bureaucrats say they can't, while same bureaucrats limit and discriminate against others who want the same?

Discriminate against what lines?

Pedophiles?

That's absurd. You can't truly want to engage in an intelligent conversation comparing a mutually consensual relationship between adults and adults raping children, can you?

Consent is the difference, and minors can't consent to sex, or get a credit card, or buy a house.

What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

[Free Vulcan]

Discriminate against what lines?

Pedophiles?

That's absurd. You can't truly want to engage in an intelligent conversation comparing a mutually consensual relationship between adults and adults raping children, can you?

Consent is the difference, and minors can't consent to sex, or get a credit card, or buy a house.

What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

You're deflecting and bloviating. I also said polygamy and incest. Bottom line is that minor consent can be given if the legal system says it can, and historically it was. There is no reason why they can't swerve to make it so again, especially if Muslims request it. Does a business person have to honor that? And why to polygamists get religious protection but not those who disagree with it do not? Why would we allow polygamist marriage and not incest? Are we going to apply equally here under the 14th amendment?

You want the govt  to protect one religious expression and prohibit another,  and the same for sexual orientation. You have a very inconsistent application of the 14th amendment, basically you want to put the choice in the hands of the govt and try to pass their rules off as equality, while telling a businessowner that they can't do the same thing.

Which doesn't even begin to deal with the transsexual issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're deflecting and bloviating. I also said polygamy and incest. Bottom line is that minor consent can be given if the legal system says it can, and historically it was. There is no reason why they can't swerve to make it so again, especially if Muslims request it. Does a business person have to honor that? And why to polygamists get religious protection but not those who disagree with it do not? Why would we allow polygamist marriage and not incest? Are we going to apply equally here under the 14th amendment?

You want the govt  to protect one religious expression and prohibit another,  and the same for sexual orientation. You have a very inconsistent application of the 14th amendment, basically you want to put the choice in the hands of the govt and try to pass their rules off as equality, while telling a businessowner that they can't do the same thing.

Which doesn't even begin to deal with the transsexual issue.

I addressed polygamy and incest will never be legal no matter how much you bloviate.

Bottom line is that there is no indication, outside your somewhat twisted mind, that the legal system will ever consider allowing minors to give consent since along with consent comes legal and financial responsibilities for one's decision to consent.

What's become somewhat evident here is that you have some sort of a problem with the idea that consenting adults should be able to engage in private legal sexual activities that you don't approve of. You will experience much frustration in life.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW. I'm not inconsistent.

You're irrational.

[Free Vulcan]

BTW. I'm not inconsistent.

You're irrational.

Again, you're deflecting and distracting. You didn't deal with polygamy, you swept your inconstency under the rug. We're talking about marriage and the religous right to object to it via providing business services. Whether say an incest marriage will ever happen is irrelevant, the question is why do they have different rights under the 14th? Pedophilia might stay illegal, but guaranteed the liberals will work to redefine consent. Per your definition if it becomes legal then a business may not object to it under the 1st amendment, yet you will allow polygamy under the same amendment.

Bottom line is you want a very uneven application of the 1st and 14th amendments, and want to let the govt decide who are the haves and have nots, yet give people and businesses no leeway to do the same, unless they agree with the govt stance.

You are totally inconistent and are intellectually contradictory.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Again, you're deflecting and distracting. You didn't deal with polygamy, you swept your inconstency under the rug. We're talking about marriage and the religous right to object to it via providing business services. Whether say an incest marriage will ever happen is irrelevant, the question is why do they have different rights under the 14th? Pedophilia might stay illegal, but guaranteed the liberals will work to redefine consent. Per your definition if it becomes legal then a business may not object to it under the 1st amendment, yet you will allow polygamy under the same amendment.

Bottom line is you want a very uneven application of the 1st and 14th amendments, and want to let the govt decide who are the haves and have nots, yet give people and businesses no leeway to do the same, unless they agree with the govt stance.

You are totally inconistent and are intellectually contradictory.

You're incoherent AND irrational.

Go rest.

You need it.

Laws against religious polygamy are unconstitutional. Laws against non-religious polygamy have not been challenged and may or may not fall, but unlike you, my Nostradamus powers aren't fully developed.

If the State of Oregon passes a law that says that for-profit business can't deny services or products to customers based on their sexual orientation, then you better be ready to either leave Oregon, or do business with homosexuals, because your ability to own and operate a licensed business in Oregon is contingent on you abiding by the laws of the State.

Talking to you on this subject is a waste of my time.

We're done.

Go claim victory if you wish. I couldn't possibly card less.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ And it's not that your posts are provocative. They're a little sophomoric, improper and somewhat demented. ]]

You lose, Luis. Sorry.

I don't find 240b's posts to be that at all.
Indeed, I consider his (and Andy-58's) to be among the best in this forum.

Post away, 240b.
The more "provocative", the better!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ And it's not that your posts are provocative. They're a little sophomoric, improper and somewhat demented. ]]

You lose, Luis. Sorry.

I don't find 240b's posts to be that at all.
Indeed, I consider his (and Andy-58's) to be among the best in this forum.

Post away, 240b.
The more "provocative", the better!

The owner disagrees with you.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,173879.msg683613.html#msg683613

[EdinVA]

Again, you're deflecting and distracting. You didn't deal with polygamy, you swept your inconstency under the rug. We're talking about marriage and the religous right to object to it via providing business services. Whether say an incest marriage will ever happen is irrelevant, the question is why do they have different rights under the 14th? Pedophilia might stay illegal, but guaranteed the liberals will work to redefine consent. Per your definition if it becomes legal then a business may not object to it under the 1st amendment, yet you will allow polygamy under the same amendment.

Bottom line is you want a very uneven application of the 1st and 14th amendments, and want to let the govt decide who are the haves and have nots, yet give people and businesses no leeway to do the same, unless they agree with the govt stance.

You are totally inconistent and are intellectually contradictory.

The rub is that the LGBTxx community has somehow convinced the courts, and most everyone else, that being "gay" is the same as being born black or asian or native american, and are due the same protected class status, and that I do not understand.
I also do not understand why the true "minorities" have not raised the roof over this.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The rub is that the LGBTxx community has somehow convinced the courts, and most everyone else, that being "gay" is the same as being born black or asian or native american, and are due the same protected class status, and that I do not understand.
I also do not understand why the true "minorities" have not raised the roof over this.

Or that laws were being enacted specifically intended to single them out in society as having a citizenship of lesser value than the rest.

You may not believe that one is born with a predetermined sexual orientation, but I do, and not being a homosexual myself I've never presumed that I can tell a homosexual how it was that they became one. The pertinent point is that the legal mechanics of the licensing of marriage could no longer support a denial of a license to consenting adults simply based on a level of animus toward a legal activity (homosexuality). 

The ship has sailed.

[sinkspur]

Interesting. No doubt Brad Avakian could assess a penalty against the couple for refusing to serve a couple of carpet munchers, though the  amount is unduly excessive.

But he CAN NOT gag them. They should continue to speak out and challenge that in court. He doesn't have the authority to gag anybody.

He's a friggin' cretin as well, having sided with the LGBTQ community on the day the gay marriage decision was announced.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Interesting. No doubt Brad Avakian could assess a penalty against the couple for refusing to serve a couple of carpet munchers, though the  amount is unduly excessive.

But he CAN NOT gag them. They should continue to speak out and challenge that in court. He doesn't have the authority to gag anybody.

He's a friggin' cretin as well, having sided with the LGBTQ community on the day the gay marriage decision was announced.

The gag thing is over the top.

The fact that the Becket Defense Fund hasn't jumped on this tells me that they don't see a clear way to a win in this case.

[musiclady]

The rub is that the LGBTxx community has somehow convinced the courts, and most everyone else, that being "gay" is the same as being born black or asian or native american, and are due the same protected class status, and that I do not understand.
I also do not understand why the true "minorities" have not raised the roof over this.

The bullying campaign on this subject has been a long time in development, and very thorough.

I would guess that most minorities don't speak up because they, like the rest of us, are not so fond of being beaten bloody by the leftists who have promoted this absurd comparison.

Homosexuality is not even close to being born with a different skin color, but if you say so publicly, prepare to be flogged.

[rangerrebew]

Oregon Couple Who Refused To Bake Cake For Gay Wedding Now Slapped With Gag Order – They Can’t Say They Will “Continue To Stand Strong”

 

Robert Gehl 
July 4, 2015

Back in April, Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of “Sweet Cakes” in Oregon were fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

This was a violation of Oregon State law, which bans same-sex discrimination. The fine bankrupted the couple and they have since closed their doors.

But because they believed their First Amendment rights were in jeopardy – specifically the right to assert their religious beliefs by not participating in a gay wedding – they wanted to continue to fight in court.

During a media interview about their continued legal struggle, Aaron Klein said: “The fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Apparently, by uttering that statement, Aaron Klein has again broken Oregon law and a bureaucrat has slapped a “cease and desist” order against him for making similar statements.

 


The state law bans people from even saying or suggesting that they intend to discriminate against anyone.

TruthRevolt is reporting that Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered the couple to stop speaking about their objections to the case.


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.

Shockingly, the “simple statement of personal resolve” is a violation of state law, Avakian has ruled.

The Kleins’ have also provided a response to ruling on their Facebook page, saying it “effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights.”

“According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech,” wrote the former bakery owners.

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/oregon-couple-who-refused-to-bake-cake-for-gay-wedding-now-slapped-with-gag-order-they-cant-say-they-will-continue-to-stand-strong

[EdinVA]

Or that laws were being enacted specifically intended to single them out in society as having a citizenship of lesser value than the rest.

You may not believe that one is born with a predetermined sexual orientation, but I do, and not being a homosexual myself I've never presumed that I can tell a homosexual how it was that they became one. The pertinent point is that the legal mechanics of the licensing of marriage could no longer support a denial of a license to consenting adults simply based on a level of animus toward a legal activity (homosexuality). 

The ship has sailed.

There were laws against the activity, not the person in contrast to blacks, native americans etc so there is a very real difference.

You can choose to buy into the Elizabeth Warren philosophy of "I think it, therefore it is true" but I do not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There were laws against the activity, not the person in contrast to blacks, native americans etc so there is a very real difference.

You can choose to buy into the Elizabeth Warren philosophy of "I think it, therefore it is true" but I do not.

Yes, there were laws against the activity (sodomy) then the laws were modified, fine tuned as it were, to make only same-sex sodomy illegal. So now it wasn't the activity that was illegal, but rather the gender of the participants.

That was the base for Lawrence v. Texas. Texas changed their long-standing anti-sodomy laws  and legalized (or decriminalized) heterosexual sodomy so now, if the police walked into a room where two couples were engaged in the identical activity of sodomy, one heterosexual couple and one homosexual couple, the officers would apologize to one couple for the interruption and arrest the other. This amounted to saying that praying was illegal, but only to Episcopalians, or that the speed limit on the highways was 55 MPH, but only for people driving Mazdas.

When you enacts laws that treat specific subgroups of people differently for engaging in activities that are legal to the majority, you create inequities in the people's right to Equal Protection and raises constitutional questions.

I'll ignore the obligatory ad hominem.

[Free Vulcan]

You're incoherent AND irrational.

Go rest.

You need it.

Laws against religious polygamy are unconstitutional. Laws against non-religious polygamy have not been challenged and may or may not fall, but unlike you, my Nostradamus powers aren't fully developed.

If the State of Oregon passes a law that says that for-profit business can't deny services or products to customers based on their sexual orientation, then you better be ready to either leave Oregon, or do business with homosexuals, because your ability to own and operate a licensed business in Oregon is contingent on you abiding by the laws of the State.

Talking to you on this subject is a waste of my time.

We're done.

Go claim victory if you wish. I couldn't possibly card less.

Bottom line is you want things to be thus and so as you declare them, but can't handle how completely inconsistent your declarations are. You want to allow this sexual orientation but not that, this religious freedom but not that, and apply constitutional amendments to one group and the other not. Your application of them would yield a very lop-sided, very unequal world of constitutional haves and have nots.

So you're running away because your construct is totally falling apart and you don't want to deal with your legal contradictions. You aren't going to play Pope to me and try to pass this crap off as something legit. The Titanic holds water better than your reasoning.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Bottom line is you want things to be thus and so as you declare them, but can't handle how completely inconsistent your declarations are. You want to allow this sexual orientation but not that, this religious freedom but not that, and apply constitutional amendments to one group and the other not. Your application of them would yield a very lop-sided, very unequal world of constitutional haves and have nots.

So you're running away because your construct is totally falling apart and you don't want to deal with your legal contradictions. You aren't going to play Pope to me and try to pass this crap off as something legit. The Titanic holds water better than your reasoning.

I'm not running away.

You bore me.

[Free Vulcan]

I'm not running away.

You bore me.

Which is the response of vain intellectual entitlement. Your lack of argument is because you're used to peddling this tripe on social issues under the guise of libertarianism and not having it be challenged here.  I've heard these tired old saws a hundred times and then some, and when you point out their inconsistencies in their application of the law, then begins the theatrics. It's pointing to Christians and telling them they can't  pick and choose, while at they same time they're picking and choosing, as the pot calls the kettle black.

Same old Alinsky tactics, same old song and dance. Hell, I'm already vindicated a mere day after my assertion:

Guess Who’s Next in the “Civil Rights” Parade:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,174020.0.html

[GourmetDan]

Which is the response of vain intellectual entitlement. Your lack of argument is because you're used to peddling this tripe on social issues under the guise of libertarianism and not having it be challenged here.  I've heard these tired old saws a hundred times and then some, and when you point out their inconsistencies in their application of the law, then begins the theatrics. It's pointing to Christians and telling them they can't  pick and choose, while at they same time they're picking and choosing, as the pot calls the kettle black.

Yeah, there are several who are here just to keep the pot stirred...

[Fishrrman]

The solution is simple:

Leave Oregon, and speak your mind on the subject.

Remain in Oregon, and be their slave.

[raml]

They should leave Oregon that is a given. That state hasn't lived by our constitution for many years now.

[Paladin]

Where does this little peckerhead get the authority to do this?

TruthRevolt is reporting that Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered the couple to stop speaking about their objections to the case.

Moreover, consider the Constitution of the state of Oregon. After guaranteeing people freedom of conscience (Art I, sections 2 &3), it goes on to guarantee freedom of speech.

Text of Section 8:
Freedom of Speech and Press

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.[1]

http://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Oregon_Constitution

Now I suppose the SSM choir will come on here telling us the law in OR prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation but since when does statutory law overrule the Constitution of the state or the nation? Do Oregonians have freedom of conscience or do they not? Do they have freedom of speech or is it subject to the approval of some insignificant little government bureaucrat?

Can't you members of the choir wake up and recognize what is going on right under your noses?
 

[EdinVA]

Yes, there were laws against the activity (sodomy) then the laws were modified, fine tuned as it were, to make only same-sex sodomy illegal. So now it wasn't the activity that was illegal, but rather the gender of the participants.

That was the base for Lawrence v. Texas. Texas changed their long-standing anti-sodomy laws  and legalized (or decriminalized) heterosexual sodomy so now, if the police walked into a room where two couples were engaged in the identical activity of sodomy, one heterosexual couple and one homosexual couple, the officers would apologize to one couple for the interruption and arrest the other. This amounted to saying that praying was illegal, but only to Episcopalians, or that the speed limit on the highways was 55 MPH, but only for people driving Mazdas.

When you enacts laws that treat specific subgroups of people differently for engaging in activities that are legal to the majority, you create inequities in the people's right to Equal Protection and raises constitutional questions.

I'll ignore the obligatory ad hominem.

My point was the implied equal status of gay vs true minority.
Did we ever have gay slaves?
Were gays hunted down for bounty?
Were gays ever denied the right to vote?
Then there is the indentured servitude...
The ONLY inconvenience gays have experienced is marriage so they, in my view, are not due equal consideration as true minorities.