Bakery Owners Refuse to Pay Gay Extortionists

[SassyIrishLass]

Damages were awarded for "emotional suffering." That idea alone should render the ruling illegitimate. Government is not to be an engine of compassion. Constitutionalism is rooted in experience and reason.

The fine was overkill....by design

 

[Iceweasel]

No business in Oregon an advertise that they intend to discrimination. See post #263, it's illegal for ANY business to advertise that they will discriminate.

The law is unfair and unconstitutional. We know it's a law, what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[daws101]

I guess gays are no longer interested in tolerance. Now they want domination.

Oh the melodrama!

Very flaming queen-like, isn't it?

Yep!

 

[daws101]

It's a gag order.

No it's not.

The Kleins no longer have a place of business.

Yes they do, Sweetcakes by Melissa is still an operational business.

You can order a cake today from them today -->> Home - Sweet Cakes

They can't advertise that their business will discriminate.

No business in Oregon an advertise that they intend to discrimination. See post #263, it's illegal for ANY business to advertise that they will discriminate.


>>>>

You can order goods. They no longer have a physical bakery.

They must have a bakery somewhere or do baked goods fly out of their asses?

 

[daws101]

Damages were awarded for "emotional suffering." That idea alone should render the ruling illegitimate. Government is not to be an engine of compassion. Constitutionalism is rooted in experience and reason.

Tell the republicans that.

 

[daws101]

No business in Oregon an advertise that they intend to discrimination. See post #263, it's illegal for ANY business to advertise that they will discriminate.

The law is unfair and unconstitutional. We know it's a law, what the fuck is wrong with you?

False.

 

[daws101]

Good for them!!

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
​

Awesome! Good for them! What they gonna do? Throw them in jail over a civil case or steal their business that no longer exists?

False

 

[Preacher]

Good for them!!

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
​

Awesome! Good for them! What they gonna do? Throw them in jail over a civil case or steal their business that no longer exists?

False

False what dipshit. I never made a statement I asked a question....Plus I care less what your opinion is. I hope they ignore the "commission" god dam that sounds like something from communist Russia opinion even if they find them liable after the appeal.

 

[Dragonlady]

The fascist "gag order" is political overreach at its worst.

The bakers published the names and addresses of the women who complained on their Facebook page, which led to harassment, death threats, and the possibility that these women could lose custody of their children.

Protecting people against harassment is hardly fascist.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The fascist "gag order" is political overreach at its worst.

The bakers published the names and addresses of the women who complained on their Facebook page, which led to harassment, death threats, and the possibility that these women could lose custody of their children.

Protecting people against harassment is hardly fascist.

Like CNN did with the Ferguson police officer? Gag CNN...what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

 

[Preacher]

The fascist "gag order" is political overreach at its worst.

The bakers published the names and addresses of the women who complained on their Facebook page, which led to harassment, death threats, and the possibility that these women could lose custody of their children.

Protecting people against harassment is hardly fascist.

Proof? Oh and their names were quite well known already. It was a fairly easy step to finding their address.

 

[Zander]

The fix was in from the beginning.

The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

--------------------------------------


The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In April, a judge for the agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.


“State agencies have a duty to represent the best interests of the general public, not the interests of one particular advocacy group,” said @HvonSpakovsky.

“That’s a clear conflict of interest,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

State agencies have a duty to represent the best interests of the general public, not the interests of one particular advocacy group. The relationship shown by these communications is inappropriate and raises basic questions about the objectivity, bias, and fairness of this agency and its proceedings.

It is unclear what occurred during these meetings and phone calls, but the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries commissioner, who is in charge of determining the Kleins’ final punishment, met with Basic Rights Oregon on multiple occasions and purchased tickets costing hundreds of dollars benefiting the advocacy group.

In a statement to The Daily Signal, Charlie Burr, communications director for the Bureau of Labor and Industries, said the agency and its commissioner are “committed to fair enforcement” of the state’s anti-discrimination measure.

“We are committed to fair enforcement of the Oregon Equality Act of 2007 and other civil rights protections,” Burr said via email on Friday. “In each case, we investigate the unique set of facts to determine whether substantial evidence exists.”

But unearthed emails appear to challenge that narrative, and based on The Daily Signal’s findings, lawyers for the Kleins on Friday requested the case be re-opened for further investigation.

The State’s Case Against Sweet Cakes by Melissa

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is in charge of defending the state’s Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics.

When claims of discrimination occur, plaintiffs must file a complaint with the bureau.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer (who have since married) filed a complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa in February 2013, a month after the Kleins refused to make a cake for the couple’s same-sex wedding.

At the time, same-sex marriage was not legal in Oregon, and Basic Rights Oregon was in the process of gathering signatures to bring the measure to the ballot in the upcoming 2014 election.

Oregon began recognizing same-sex marriages from other states in October of 2013, and on May 19, 2014, a federal judge struck down the ban, legalizing gay marriage.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries waited until August 2013 to open its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa, six months after the agency received the initial complaint from Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.


Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were forced to close their bakery after facing boycotts and coming under public backlash. (Photo: Patchbay Media)

The Emails

Communications between Bureau of Labor and Industries Commissioner Brad Avakian and Basic Rights Oregon, which has actively spoken out against the Kleins, raise questions about whether the commissioner and other agency employees were using the case to benefit a political agenda, and in the process, stripping the Kleins of their right to a fair trial.

According to emails, Avakian met with Basic Rights Oregon on multiple occasions.

One of those meetings was planned for May 1, 2014, shortly before a federal court struck down Oregon’s Defense of Marriage Act.

Another meeting between the commissioner and Basic Rights Oregon occurred on or around August 5, 2014. This fell between the time a judge denied the Kleins’ first attempt to disqualify the commissioner for bias and shortly before a hearing for the case was scheduled to begin.





On or around Oct. 7, 2014, Avakian accepted a phone call from Jeana Frazzini, co-director of Basic Rights Oregon, according to another email.

On Dec. 2, 2014, a Basic Rights Oregon employee wrote of Avakian, “His voice is really important as a coalition partner, and a leader in Oregon politics.”

Emails also show Avakian purchasing tickets costing hundreds of dollars to attend Basic Rights Oregon’s annual fundraising galas and gay pride parades, while his agency’s case against the Kleins was underway.

In 2012, Basic Rights Oregon donated almost $8,000 to Avakian’s bid for commissioner.

‘Inherent Conflict of Interest’

Avakian is a hugely important figure in the Kleins’ case—he will determine the fine amount the Kleins ultimately pay.

This April, Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who was appointed to his position by Avakian and is also employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, issued a “proposed order” for the case against Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

McCullough recommended the Kleins pay $135,000 to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, saying the Kleins imposed mental, physical and emotional damages upon the lesbian couple by refusing to serve them.

Now, Avakian must issue a final ruling on the case, and in doing so, he “can adopt all or any part” of McCullough’s proposed order.


(Photo: Alex Anderson/Facebook)

Avakian is expected to issue that order this summer, when the Kleins will then have the opportunity to file an appeal.

Von Spakovsky, who is a critic of the administrative law process, says the relationship between Avakian and an activist group would be an obvious ethics violation in a normal court system.

“The problem with administrative law judges appointed by a government agency is that they have an inherent conflict of interest—the agency is acting as judge, prosecutor, jury, and executioner, which is a basic violation of fundamental due process protections,” he said.

The whole point of having an independent judiciary is to separate the judicial and prosecutorial functions and avoid this type of conflict.



Emails Raise Questions About Bias in Sweet Cakes Ruling​

 

[Iceweasel]

No business in Oregon an advertise that they intend to discrimination. See post #263, it's illegal for ANY business to advertise that they will discriminate.

The law is unfair and unconstitutional. We know it's a law, what the fuck is wrong with you?

False.

Idiot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No business in Oregon an advertise that they intend to discrimination. See post #263, it's illegal for ANY business to advertise that they will discriminate.

The law is unfair and unconstitutional. We know it's a law, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothings wrong with me. The claim was there was a "Gag Order" issued, there wasn't.

What was pointed out was how the Klein's violated Oregon Statutes, that is not a "Gag Order". That is a law that says a business cannot say they intend to discriminate.

Such restrictions are not unconstitutional. The Kleins are still free to discuss the case.


>>>>

 

[Blackrook]

Americans don't lose their First Amendment protections when they want to complain about fascist oppression of their religious rights.

 

[Iceweasel]

No business in Oregon an advertise that they intend to discrimination. See post #263, it's illegal for ANY business to advertise that they will discriminate.

The law is unfair and unconstitutional. We know it's a law, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Nothings wrong with me. The claim was there was a "Gag Order" issued, there wasn't.

What was pointed out was how the Klein's violated Oregon Statutes, that is not a "Gag Order". That is a law that says a business cannot say they intend to discriminate.

Such restrictions are not unconstitutional. The Kleins are still free to discuss the case.

I wasn't talking about a gag order. The fact that the liberals had to include public accommodation bullshit, especially regarding sexual preferences, on the citizens proves it isn't in the Constitution.
They don't see man with man the same as man with woman, hard for totalitarian assholes to accept but it's nature and freedom versus tyranny. You side with tyranny, we get it.

 

[Pop23]

I guess gays are no longer interested in tolerance. Now they want domination.

Oh the melodrama!

Very flaming queen-like, isn't it?

Keep your fantasies to yourself, nobody cares what your dressing up for on Halloween this year.

Oh, it's not JUST for Halloween.

Got it

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wasn't talking about a gag order. The fact that the liberals had to include public accommodation bullshit, especially regarding sexual preferences, on the citizens proves it isn't in the Constitution.
They don't see man with man the same as man with woman, hard for totalitarian assholes to accept but it's nature and freedom versus tyranny. You side with tyranny, we get it.

Wow actually wrong again.

See unlike some others I can recognize the difference between the way law functions (such as simply calling a law I don't like as "unconstitutional") and what I think the law should be.

Personally I think that Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed restoring rights of property and association to business owners. Corporate businesses and franchises that operate under a corporate structure are going to maintain non-discrimination policies that employees will have to follow because it is good business. They won't want the negative publicity - and yes people will have the right to point out discriminatory practices through review sites, media, email campaigns, and social media.

If a business doesn't want to serve blacks, Jews, Chinese, men (or women), old people, disabled people, Muslims, divorcees, homosexuals, or trans-gendered people they should be able to. If a Christian baker should be able to refuse service because someone is gay, then a gay restaurant supply business owner should be able to refuse to sell them supplies because of their religious views.


>>>>

 

[daws101]

Good for them!!

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
​

Awesome! Good for them! What they gonn

a do? Throw them in jail over a civil case or steal their business that no longer exists?

False

False what dipshit. I never made a statement I asked a question....Plus I care less what your opinion is. I hope they ignore the "commission" god dam that sounds like something from communist Russia opinion even if they find them liable after the appeal.

They still have a business, your question was based on a false premise.
The rest of your bullshit is provocation. Based on an extreme bias .
That makes it false.

 

[daws101]

No business in Oregon an advertise that they intend to discrimination. See post #263, it's illegal for ANY business to advertise that they will discriminate.

The law is unfair and unconstitutional. We know it's a law, what the fuck is wrong with you?

False.

Idiot.

Assumes facts not in evidence.