Constitution???? What Constitution?

[Ernie S.]

“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,”

so they don't get to advertise that they discriminate... what's the problem?

exactly. Whats the BFD?

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (a possible person known as Dot Com) to cease and desist from publishing, posting, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication regarding politics or religion"

What's the BFD?

Debating FAIL!!!

Absurdity deserves nothing more and your inability to grasp the point is rather comical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?

you know, like let's make pretend you support reproductive choice, single mothers, and gay couples...

now, can you tell me why you are not concerned for those other people - not you of course - but those other people who would deny those individuals their freedoms. why do you not cry about those FASCISTS on those issues?

"why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?"

You subscribed onto this thread.....no doubt imagining that you could find some error in my posts.

Clearly.....you could not.

So....you lied:
"and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."

No such posts are extant.




And, I have no intention of allowing you to run from your lie....and change the subject.

As you support.....or tried to support, gag orders by the government....you have identified yourself as a fascist....or at the least, an incipient fascist.

Now.....should you choose to start a thread on some other topic, I may or may not subscribe.
But....unlike you, I will never lie.



BTW....notice how effortlessly I indicted gag orders......and you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gag orders are unconstitutional? Prove it.

Have someone with a higher level than you have, explain the thread to you.

Any third grader will do.


Start here:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Valerie]

why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?

you know, like let's make pretend you support reproductive choice, single mothers, and gay couples...

now, can you tell me why you are not concerned for those other people - not you of course - but those other people who would deny those individuals their freedoms. why do you not cry about those FASCISTS on those issues?

"why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?"

You subscribed onto this thread.....no doubt imagining that you could find some error in my posts.

Clearly.....you could not.

So....you lied:
"and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."

No such posts are extant.




And, I have no intention of allowing you to run from your lie....and change the subject.

As you support.....or tried to support, gag orders by the government....you have identified yourself as a fascist....or at the least, an incipient fascist.

Now.....should you choose to start a thread on some other topic, I may or may not subscribe.
But....unlike you, I will never lie.



BTW....notice how effortlessly I indicted gag orders......and you.

i stand by what i said, and i'd add delusional liar to describe you as well.

you daily posts are the proof.

 

[PoliticalChic]

why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?

you know, like let's make pretend you support reproductive choice, single mothers, and gay couples...

now, can you tell me why you are not concerned for those other people - not you of course - but those other people who would deny those individuals their freedoms. why do you not cry about those FASCISTS on those issues?

"why don't you address the point of my original post rather than obfuscating and hanging your hat on making things personal all the time?"

You subscribed onto this thread.....no doubt imagining that you could find some error in my posts.

Clearly.....you could not.

So....you lied:
"and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."

No such posts are extant.




And, I have no intention of allowing you to run from your lie....and change the subject.

As you support.....or tried to support, gag orders by the government....you have identified yourself as a fascist....or at the least, an incipient fascist.

Now.....should you choose to start a thread on some other topic, I may or may not subscribe.
But....unlike you, I will never lie.



BTW....notice how effortlessly I indicted gag orders......and you.

i stand by what i said, and i'd add delusional liar to describe you as well.

you daily posts are the proof.

I nailed ya' good, huh?

Turns out you're not just a fool, but a liar, too.

Everyone can see that you posted this:
"and fascists like YOU would like to create legislation to control these women."

But you couldn't back it up. No such posts are extant.




Stay tuned.....your education will continue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So I can yell FIRE in a crowded theater.....

As I promised.....your remedial education follows:

8. Gag orders are clearly unconstitutional....only an abject idiot could read the first amendment and not decide so:

"Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; orabridging the freedom of speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."




Are there ever good reasons to step on the proscription in the Constitution..."... make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,...."?
Yes....and the Supreme Court, often wrong, but in this case has found the proverbial 'acorn.'


But the exceptions are few and specific, and were never meant to make 'life' easier for government.

They would only be to save lives.



9. TheBrandenburgtest (also known as the imminent lawless action test)
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Handwas possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, inMasses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10]reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation".


TheBrandenburgintent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings.Brandenburgdid not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that afterBrandenburg, the test is de facto overruled.

The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.


a. Brandenburgv. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Wikipedia



b. "....constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Text of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) is available from: Cornell Legal Information Institute

 

[Camp]

Brandenburg is not on your side PC. Nor does it support the OP. The Klein's, by advertising that they intended to continue to discriminate were advocating an imminent lawless action. Your cut and paste is working against you. Free speech does not give one the freedom to advocate breaking the law.
It should be noted that after this recent development the Klein's have stopped promoting a home operated business and claim to be baking only for friends. No doubt legal advice has convinced them that failure to follow the cease and desist order will end up costing them huge legal fees and fines that will gobble up all the very substantial funds donated to them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Brandenburg is not on your side PC. Nor does it support the OP. The Klein's, by advertising that they intended to continue to discriminate were advocating an imminent lawless action. Your cut and paste is working against you. Free speech does not give one the freedom to advocate breaking the law.
It should be noted that after this recent development the Klein's have stopped promoting a home operated business and claim to be baking only for friends. No doubt legal advice has convinced them that failure to follow the cease and desist order will end up costing them huge legal fees and fines that will gobble up all the very substantial funds donated to them.

1. "Brandenburg is not on your side PC. Nor does it support the OP."

Actually, Brandenburg is supporting of my position, and, more to the point, my point is that of the United States Constitution.

You anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-Constitution fascists scamper around like the cockroaches that you are when the spotlight is turned on.


2. "Free speech does not give one the freedom to advocate breaking the law."
Wrong, fascist.
That is exactly what free speech does.
Brandenburg says exactly that.


3. Your fabrications are totally understandable. You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history. Even when the proof is right before your eyes.


4. But I do so appreciate your taking time away from polishing FDR's tombstone to drop by.

 

[Camp]

Brandenburg is not on your side PC. Nor does it support the OP. The Klein's, by advertising that they intended to continue to discriminate were advocating an imminent lawless action. Your cut and paste is working against you. Free speech does not give one the freedom to advocate breaking the law.
It should be noted that after this recent development the Klein's have stopped promoting a home operated business and claim to be baking only for friends. No doubt legal advice has convinced them that failure to follow the cease and desist order will end up costing them huge legal fees and fines that will gobble up all the very substantial funds donated to them.

1. "Brandenburg is not on your side PC. Nor does it support the OP."

Actually, Brandenburg is supporting of my position, and, more to the point, my point is that of the United States Constitution.

You anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-Constitution fascists scamper around like the cockroaches that you are when the spotlight is turned on.


2. "Free speech does not give one the freedom to advocate breaking the law."
Wrong, fascist.
That is exactly what free speech does.
Brandenburg says exactly that.


3. Your fabrications are totally understandable. You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history. Even when the proof is right before your eyes.


4. But I do so appreciate your taking time away from polishing FDR's tombstone to drop by.

Nope, your caught. Anyone can read in your cut and paste quotes that Brandenburg specifically excludes promotion of speech that incites imminent lawless action as being covered under free speech. Your lie about the gag order is biting you back now. The cease and desist order told the Klein's to stop breaking the law, not to stop their free speech. The free speech was never recognized as free speech or at issue by the court. It was recognized as inciting imminent lawless action, discrimination specifically. Take away the private aspect and the Klein's get to say whatever they want. People are allowed to discriminate, businesses are not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“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,”

so they don't get to advertise that they discriminate... what's the problem?

exactly. Whats the BFD?

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (a possible person known as Dot Com) to cease and desist from publishing, posting, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication regarding politics or religion"

What's the BFD?

To state that you will refuse to serve gays is a refusal to serve gays. It is against the law in Oregon to discriminate against gays.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gag orders are unconstitutional? Prove it.

Have someone with a higher level than you have, explain the thread to you.

Any third grader will do.


Start here:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So the laws against child pornography are unconstitutional? Are you sure about that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

in reality, gag orders occur all the time...sometimes they might be questionable or troublesome enough to be challenged, but most times perfectly appropriate and routine within our system of justice which has built in legal mechanisms to remedy any and every circumstance in order to insure our constitution is ultimately upheld...


"Constitution???? What Constitution? "



hysterical hyperbolic cries of FASCISM over pending cases in the daily news are hysterical.



just watch, I can prove that ^ ...effortlessly. >

You're begging for an education???

No prob......here it comes......I'll do it effortlessly:



Gag orders: unconstitutional
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&context=faculty_scholarship


.

That has nothing to do with what the judge ordered.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“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,”

so they don't get to advertise that they discriminate... what's the problem?

exactly. Whats the BFD?

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (a possible person known as Dot Com) to cease and desist from publishing, posting, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication regarding politics or religion"

What's the BFD?

To state that you will refuse to serve gays is a refusal to serve gays. It is against the law in Oregon to discriminate against gays.

659A.409¹
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]

 

[Ernie S.]

“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,”

so they don't get to advertise that they discriminate... what's the problem?

exactly. Whats the BFD?

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (a possible person known as Dot Com) to cease and desist from publishing, posting, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication regarding politics or religion"

What's the BFD?

To state that you will refuse to serve gays is a refusal to serve gays. It is against the law in Oregon to discriminate against gays.

659A.409¹
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]

Not applicable. They did not refuse to bake a cake because the women were gay.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gag orders are unconstitutional? Prove it.

Have someone with a higher level than you have, explain the thread to you.

Any third grader will do.


Start here:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

But congress did make a law inspiring gag orders! They have been issued from the bench for years! Get another third grader to explain the words of the amendment to you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So I can yell FIRE in a crowded theater.....

Where is the danger to life and limb " from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs"?


Shall I wait for an intuitive response from you, drop-draws, or shall I go on with a full and exciting life?


Later in the thread I will cover the 'test' for restrictions on free speech.

When you do, cover this ruling too:

Morse v. Frederick - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

so they don't get to advertise that they discriminate... what's the problem?

exactly. Whats the BFD?

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (a possible person known as Dot Com) to cease and desist from publishing, posting, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication regarding politics or religion"

What's the BFD?

To state that you will refuse to serve gays is a refusal to serve gays. It is against the law in Oregon to discriminate against gays.

659A.409¹
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]

Not applicable. They did not refuse to bake a cake because the women were gay.

When did you suddenly get dumber than you normally are?

 

[Carla_Danger]

So I can yell FIRE in a crowded theater.....

Where is the danger to life and limb " from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs"?


Shall I wait for an intuitive response from you, drop-draws, or shall I go on with a full and exciting life?


Later in the thread I will cover the 'test' for restrictions on free speech.

You can talk about not wanting to bake cakes all day long, Dingbat. See, you're doing it right now.

Progressives/Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, ....


3. In their headlong race to "fundamentally change this nation," the fascists....I mean Liberals/Democrats... have ignored restrictions imposed on government by the Constitution.


"... make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,...."

Nor is this the first time the Leftists have used the weight of government to restrict individual liberty.


a. " Wisconsin Political Speech Raid
Subpoenas hit allies of Scott Walker...

Americans learned in the IRS political targeting scandal that government enforcement power can be used to stifle political speech. Something similar may be unfolding in Wisconsin, where a special prosecutor is targeting conservative groups that participated in the battle over GovernorScott Walker'sunion reforms.


The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which bars a subpoena's targets from disclosing its contents to anyone but his attorneys. John Doe probes work much like a grand jury, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches, while the gag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves." Review Outlook Wisconsin Political Speech Raid - WSJ




b. " There is NOTHING that should keep us from pushing authoritarian, totalitarian forces in America into the limelight, putting THEM before both the courts of law and the court of public opinion. That will entail defiance and “breaking” some laws, such as the gag orders here." Scott Walker John Doe Investigation Abuse Home Raids



"....totalitarian forces in America into the limelight..."
As this thread does with you and the other fascists.

Oh joy, another cut n paste by Dingbat.

 

[Carla_Danger]

“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,”

so they don't get to advertise that they discriminate... what's the problem?

exactly. Whats the BFD?

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (a possible person known as Dot Com) to cease and desist from publishing, posting, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication regarding politics or religion"

What's the BFD?

Is Dot Com's politics or religion the same as a business discriminating?

LOL, you just thought you had a point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your education coming right up!


During the Democrat Lyndon Johnson administration, basically FDR-redux, the freedom of religious leaders to avail themselves of free speech was restricted.

4. " Churches and other nonprofits are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).

In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity.

Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:

· Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office

· Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office

· Cannot ask a candidate for public office to sign a pledge or other promise to support a particular issue
Churches and Political Lobbying Activities - Freedom From Religion Foundation




"... make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,...."

So, a church could not do political campaigning. The question here is, when a preacher is not working in an official capacity for a church, can they do political activity?
Maybe if a church registered as a political organisation instead of a charity then the preacher could say political stuff.

But again, I'm asking what you can't say. Seems to me that an individual can say what they like. When they work for a company that is different. I can't tell my boss to "go fuck off" for example, does that mean my free speech is being limited? No it does not. A company doesn't have the right to free speech. It's individuals that have the right to free speech. When you work for a company, on company pay, during company hours and officially representing a company you have to abide by different laws than when you're at home.

It's not difficult. You still have your freedom of speech.