Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[Vandalshandle]

Luck has nothing to do with it. This agenda is going to culminate in Christians being put to death. When the left cries Tolerance they really mean Tyranny. This is a seek and destroy.

Starting to celebrate St. Patrick's day down at the pub a little early for next year?

 

[Vandalshandle]

In a fascist society it does. And it works in a dictatorship. Not in a free society.
Why so anxious to push your agenda on someone else? Don't you like freedom?

I've been celebrating freedom from religion for decades.

As is your right, you have NO right to take away my right to celebrate religion.

Celebrate it in church, like most everyone else, not in the general public, where it impacts others.

I see, so be gay in a closet not in the general pubic where it impacts others.

Absolutely! I have always maintained that the Church of Richard Simmons keep their worship services in church, but middle aged fat women everywhere insist on taking it public.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Be whatever you want. Don't expect me to agree with everything you say and do. I don't have to. We live in America.
You do what you want and I'll do what I want. If there was only one bakery in the country and they refused to make your cake, then bitch. If you have the pick of all most all of the bakeries in the country, don't target the ones who have an issue of faith with what you want.

 

[bodecea]

Violate the order. Take this one to the supreme court.

Have others speak on the same subject no names mentioned.

Go for it.

 

[bodecea]

States Rights, Baby!

 

[bodecea]

And now I will pull a stephanie:

Is it your state? why do you care , its none of your business

Thankyou

Whaddya mean, "None of your business?" It's everybody's business. How does a Commisioner of Labor impose a gag order on someone? The bakery owner needs to confront that socialist son of a bitch with a baseball bat and break some knees.

I'm of the belief that should happen to all liberals....and if they keep pushing it may very well happen

Oh look...some violent RWrs. What a surprise.

 

[bodecea]

...
The specific order reads: “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.”
...

It always raises my eyebrows when I look up a story, like what was quoted here that was "the gag order" - and can only find it on circle-jerking right wing sites passing it around like gumballs.

I see much of it traces back the RWNJ's @ the Daily Signal.

Well, I went to find a legit source - a only then could I read the actual Final Order, which is here: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

It's 122 pages long. Yow.

Soes... I'm looking for this "gag order" -- and I come across page 30, which brings up

this Oregon LAW:

"...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]

ORS 659A.409 - Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

It notes in the Final Order the Kleins are free to speak their minds and express their opinion all they want -- and even place the emphasis by underlining "on behalf" (of the business.).

From the Order:

"it does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communications unrelated to...the public accommodation."

So, what CONNIE dishrags are calling a GAG ORDER -- is actually Oregon Law that applies to all people who own public accommodations - and it dates back to a case 30 years ago where someone put up a sign saying "NO SHIRTS, SHOES, SERVICE, *******." (n-word)

The open to the public businesses in OR can't put up a sign or advertise : "we discriminate" basically - Just as the law is titled:

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

But that's really not a problem for the Klein's now, is it? They don't have a place of public accommodation anymore do they?

Don't like it? Change the law.

So, again, RWNJ's are playing the poor poor pityme dance, once again.

Boo Hoo.

Wait! The usual suspects fell for a false story and are ranting and calling for violence over something that isn't true? SSDD, eh?

 

[bodecea]

A little of topic but my mom knows a lady who owns a shop in Indianapolis, she sells jewelry and collectibles and does a really good business in the downtown area. A couple of weeks ago Indy had it's Pride festival and many of the shops put up rainbow flags and they left them up due to the SCOTUS ruling. This woman told my mom she finally took the flags and pennants down because of her business dropping off. She also told my mom a lot of other shops took them down also. Sometimes things backfire.

Cool story, bro.

 

[bodecea]

All things considered, I suspect that they would have been better off baking and selling the cake.....

What? And miss all that martyrdom attention?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Whatever happened to free speech?

 

[Papageorgio]

My only issue is how can the court issue a gag order? That sounds heavy handed and out of the scope of the court.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, historians agree that Israel was split into two kingdoms for two reasons. First, Solomon divided northern Israel into 12 separate tax districts, which were not even divided along tribal territories, each one of which was required to provide for the needs of the entire Israeli government for one month per year, while he exempted Southern israel from the same taxes. Second, he spent most of the money fortifying Southern Israel against Egypt, while ignoring the threat of Syria against northern Israel. The north was pissed, and succeeded.

your historians should have read the official record.....it would have saved them some time....

1 Kings 11:9 The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command. 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen

I don't consider ancient fairy tales as History.

sure you do.....you quote made up shit all the time.......we can always tell when you're going to start a fairy tale.......instead of "once upon a time" you say "most historians agree".........

I would call it common sense. On one side, pay $135,000, break the law, and lose my business. On the other side, bake and sell a cake.

Decisions, decisions.....

How about I decide to stay true to my faith. Who are you to take away that right? As long as there is a gay baker and a gay florist willing to provide cakes and flowers and rainbows, why insist that a person of faith, set their faith aside or be punished?

Because there is nothing in the Christian Bible that says, "Thou shalt not bake a wedding cake for a woman who lies with a woman or a man who lies with a man", which means that it is not a tenant of your faith, but, instead, your choice to discriminate.

There's also nothing in the Bible that prescribes civil rights for Americans in the 21st century. Why don't you revisit the OP and find out what the topic of this thread is. It isn't the Bible.

ignored again...

Pussy.

Fine Christian.

 

[bodecea]

So the Christian bakers lied. Shocker.

RW Christians don't seem to be very fond of that "do not bear false witness" Commandment.

 

[dilloduck]

No it wasn't.You can bleat all day about your imaginary law but no law was broken. We have a politically correct politician deciding to make a political point to boost himself to higher office soon off the backs of these 2 people who DID NOT base their decision on these carpet muncher's sexual preference but their idea of a wedding which is perfectly fine. NOW he is trying to muzzle them which like I already stated is unconstitutional and illegal and they won't follow it.

Ore. Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbians

State of Oregon is turning into quite the liberal fascists totalitarian wet dream! Taxing drivers per mile,silencing dissent! Impressive and unconstitutional.

Don't break the law...

No law was broken my little tyrant libturd but suppressing speech IS a violation of the first amendment and not allowed. Try to follow along now.

A law was broken:

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]"

The law is the law, like it or not...

That's not what you said about DOMA. See how full of shit you are ?

 

[bodecea]

In a fascist society it does. And it works in a dictatorship. Not in a free society.
Why so anxious to push your agenda on someone else? Don't you like freedom?

I've been celebrating freedom from religion for decades.

It's freedom OF religion, moron. You leftist assholes always get it wrong

Ah...so you believe we should be FORCED to have a religion, eh?

 

[bodecea]

No it wasn't.You can bleat all day about your imaginary law but no law was broken. We have a politically correct politician deciding to make a political point to boost himself to higher office soon off the backs of these 2 people who DID NOT base their decision on these carpet muncher's sexual preference but their idea of a wedding which is perfectly fine. NOW he is trying to muzzle them which like I already stated is unconstitutional and illegal and they won't follow it.

Don't break the law...

No law was broken my little tyrant libturd but suppressing speech IS a violation of the first amendment and not allowed. Try to follow along now.

A law was broken:

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]"

The law is the law, like it or not...

That's not what you said about DOMA. See how full of shit you are ?

DOMA was dumped the legal American way.

 

[dilloduck]

No it wasn't.You can bleat all day about your imaginary law but no law was broken. We have a politically correct politician deciding to make a political point to boost himself to higher office soon off the backs of these 2 people who DID NOT base their decision on these carpet muncher's sexual preference but their idea of a wedding which is perfectly fine. NOW he is trying to muzzle them which like I already stated is unconstitutional and illegal and they won't follow it.

No law was broken my little tyrant libturd but suppressing speech IS a violation of the first amendment and not allowed. Try to follow along now.

A law was broken:

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]"

The law is the law, like it or not...

That's not what you said about DOMA. See how full of shit you are ?

DOMA was dumped the legal American way.

oh please--- anyone told you " sorry but it's the law " you would have flatly rejected that idea. WTF is wrong with you people ?

 

[PostmodernProph]

its why you will never learn anything.......you ignore your teachers......

No, I ignore people who threaten to kill me, on a public message board, and then have the nerve to cal themselves "Christians".

hm.....I forget which thread I did that in....can you point to it?......

You also seem to have forgotten that you are not the one to whom I replied, "Ignored, as usual"

.....you quoted me in the post....

Look, Pro. Go back to post 184, and expand it. You will see that the last post was from another poster, which I quoted and replied to in post 185. That is all I have to say on the subject.

my names at the top of the list....that means you were responding to me......

 

[Vandalshandle]

No, I ignore people who threaten to kill me, on a public message board, and then have the nerve to cal themselves "Christians".

hm.....I forget which thread I did that in....can you point to it?......

You also seem to have forgotten that you are not the one to whom I replied, "Ignored, as usual"

.....you quoted me in the post....

Look, Pro. Go back to post 184, and expand it. You will see that the last post was from another poster, which I quoted and replied to in post 185. That is all I have to say on the subject.

my names at the top of the list....that means you were responding to me......

End of conversation, Pro.

 

[Syriusly]

Be whatever you want. Don't expect me to agree with everything you say and do. I don't have to. We live in America.
You do what you want and I'll do what I want. If there was only one bakery in the country and they refused to make your cake, then bitch. If you have the pick of all most all of the bakeries in the country, don't target the ones who have an issue of faith with what you want.

Or- if you run a bakery- plan on following the law- and don't target your customers for discrimination.