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: 23175
Comments: 124
Melissa Klein. (Photo: Patrick Frank) Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.” In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. “This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.” The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.” Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate. Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April. But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision. “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote. (Photo: Alex Anderson/Facebook) The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, was shocked by the provision. “Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do not agree with government sanctioned ideas.” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, called the order “outrageous” and said citizens of Oregon should be “ashamed.” “This order is an outrageous abuse of the rights of the Kleins to freely practice their religion under the First Amendment,” he said. It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America. And Commissioner Avakian’s order that the Kleins stop speaking about this case is even more outrageous—and also a fundamental violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment. Avakian would have fit right in as a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union or Red China. Oregon should be ashamed that such an unprincipled, scurrilous individual is a government official in the state. The case began in February 2013 when Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint against the Kleins for refusing to bake them a wedding cake. At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon. The Bowman-Cryers’ complaint went to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which is in charge of defending the law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics, called the Equality Act of 2007. In January 2014, the agency found the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation. In April, McCullough recommended they pay $75,000 to Rachel and $60,000 to Laurel. In order to reach the total amount, $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct. Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.” In their Facebook post, the Kleins signaled their intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of violating the cease and desist. Poster Comment: The judge told them to STFU about Christ. They're not going to.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-84) not displayed.
.
.
.
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
"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.
"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]