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: 23501
Comments: 124
Melissa Klein. (Photo: Patrick Frank) Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.” In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. “This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.” The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.” Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate. Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April. But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision. “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote. (Photo: Alex Anderson/Facebook) The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, was shocked by the provision. “Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do not agree with government sanctioned ideas.” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, called the order “outrageous” and said citizens of Oregon should be “ashamed.” “This order is an outrageous abuse of the rights of the Kleins to freely practice their religion under the First Amendment,” he said. It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America. And Commissioner Avakian’s order that the Kleins stop speaking about this case is even more outrageous—and also a fundamental violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment. Avakian would have fit right in as a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union or Red China. Oregon should be ashamed that such an unprincipled, scurrilous individual is a government official in the state. The case began in February 2013 when Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint against the Kleins for refusing to bake them a wedding cake. At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon. The Bowman-Cryers’ complaint went to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which is in charge of defending the law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics, called the Equality Act of 2007. In January 2014, the agency found the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation. In April, McCullough recommended they pay $75,000 to Rachel and $60,000 to Laurel. In order to reach the total amount, $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct. Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.” In their Facebook post, the Kleins signaled their intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of violating the cease and desist. Poster Comment: The judge told them to STFU about Christ. They're not going to.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Then why did he threaten someone that they best "strengthen their PASSWORD" just last week?
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.
I have as little doubt that no hack was pulled off by anyone.
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..
#123. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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)
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
#12. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo, Liberator (#9)
is tyranny.
#18. To: CZ82 (#12)
Ummmm I don't think the pro homosexual crowd
#20. To: A K A Stone (#18)
#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.
#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.
#42. To: Deckard (#37)
He's not computer savvy enough to pull off a stunt like that.
#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)
#54. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland (#50)
I have absolutely no doubt he is computer savvy enought to pull it off.
#57. To: nolu chan (#54)
The Black Laws of Oregon, 1844-1857
Replies to Comment # 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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]