Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[Silhouette]

So what you two are advocating is religious freedom = "hate speech".

You realize where that's going to head don't you? Have you heard of the 9th Amendment before? Might want to brush up on that one..

Sue the state and judge for a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION......

Also, ask the FEDERAL COURTS to prosecute the judge for the violation.....

While an agreement not to discuss a case can be part of a settlement, it cannot be imposed as part of a judicial proceeding without the defendant's consent.

Filing a compaint against a judge is the simplest of affairs. You show the ruling, the transcripts of any hearings if you have them and then petition the committee for redress. If a flagrant violation occured like the one pointed out above, the solution is simple. You DEFY THE RULING and do an interview anyway...daring the judge to step out further. This can only have one end: revocation of the original gag rule or the judge loses their job. Do this enough times when this type of tyranny fascism occurs and our side can start sending "messages to onlookers" as well.

If the couple should be reading this, or their attorney(s) the link to the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability of Oregon can be reached here: CJFD Home - CJFD Home

The actual link to the form to file a complaint is here: http://courts.oregon.gov/CJFD/docs/040105RevisedComplaintForm.pdf

 

[bodecea]

Just like liberals can't prove someone wrong just lie about what really happened! THEY OWN NO BUSINESS! If I say to you I won't serve you because you are a fag well guess what I can and will say that because I can and would do it if I owned a business or not.

How funny...your entire "argument" is based on the lie that Liberals own no businesses.

 

[bodecea]

Con-servative logic.....a cake baking business = a church.

 

[Vigilante]

Con-servative logic.....a cake baking business = a church.

Yes, we KNOW you people ONLY take personal FEELINGS into consideration when it applies to things you approve of.... The INTOLERANCE of the liberal left!

 

[Silhouette]

Turn in the judge! Turn in the judge! TURN IN THE JUDGE!!!

 

[BluesLegend]

Just like liberals can't prove someone wrong just lie about what really happened! THEY OWN NO BUSINESS! If I say to you I won't serve you because you are a fag well guess what I can and will say that because I can and would do it if I owned a business or not.

How funny...your entire "argument" is based on the lie that Liberals own no businesses.

Hey dummy, the asshole you people elected president says, "if you own a business, you didn't build that".

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How can that possibly be legal?

 

[bripat9643]

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]"

Where does it authorize government to fine anyone for $135,000?

 

[BluesLegend]

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]"

Where does it authorize government to fine anyone for $135,000?

$135k for hurt feelings? The intent of this so called damage award is to silence free speech and bully people into giving up their Constitutional rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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]"

Where does it authorize government to fine anyone for $135,000?

$135k for hurt feelings? The intent of this so called damage award is to silence free speech and bully people into giving up their Constitutional rights.

I'm really curious to know how the judge arrived at a fine of $135,000 as the penalty. The law doesn't mention any penalties.

 

[BluesLegend]

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]"

Where does it authorize government to fine anyone for $135,000?

$135k for hurt feelings? The intent of this so called damage award is to silence free speech and bully people into giving up their Constitutional rights.

I'm really curious to know how the judge arrived at a fine of $135,000 as the penalty. The law doesn't mention any penalties.

It would be easier to challenge a fine or civil penalty, damages on the other hand are more arbitrary which is why the judge went to some lengths to point out the award was not a fine or civil penalty.

I mean come on, $135k in damage over a freaking cake is utterly ridiculous UNLESS your real goal was to intimidate, silence, and bully people into giving up their Constitutional rights.

 

[Preacher]

Just like liberals can't prove someone wrong just lie about what really happened! THEY OWN NO BUSINESS! If I say to you I won't serve you because you are a fag well guess what I can and will say that because I can and would do it if I owned a business or not.

How funny...your entire "argument" is based on the lie that Liberals own no businesses.

Not sure where in my comment you managed to pull that out of your ass from....good luck with that. Oh and faggot doesn't want to serve a REAL WEDDING aka the ONLY kind of legit wedding then OK be my guest.

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.

How can that possibly be legal?

Its not and the politician knows it isn't. This is what happens when the PEOPLE stop giving a shit.

 

[bripat9643]

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]"

Where does it authorize government to fine anyone for $135,000?

$135k for hurt feelings? The intent of this so called damage award is to silence free speech and bully people into giving up their Constitutional rights.

I'm really curious to know how the judge arrived at a fine of $135,000 as the penalty. The law doesn't mention any penalties.

It would be easier to challenge a fine or civil penalty, damages on the other hand are more arbitrary which is why the judge went to some lengths to point out the award was not a fine or civil penalty.

I mean come on, $135k in damage over a freaking cake is utterly ridiculous UNLESS your real goal was to intimidate, silence, and bully people into giving up their Constitutional rights.

If it was a lawsuit, then the defendants are entitled to a jury trial.

 

[paperview]

It wasn't a lawsuit, numbnuts.

 

[paperview]

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]"

Where does it authorize government to fine anyone for $135,000?

$135k for hurt feelings? The intent of this so called damage award is to silence free speech and bully people into giving up their Constitutional rights.

I'm really curious to know how the judge arrived at a fine of $135,000 as the penalty. The law doesn't mention any penalties.

Press release from the OR Bureau of Labor: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsse... rules on Sweet Cakes discrimination case.pdf

It notes in there what the judgment was based on and cites two prior cases where a Christian was discriminated against and awarded 325,000. Also a BK shop that discriminated based on race.

"From the Final Order : “ This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal . Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society.
The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry . ”

The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman - Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman - Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination.

The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.

The Final Order notes that the non - economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders , such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle . In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325 ,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment . In public accommodation cases, “the duration of the discrimination does not determine either the degree or duration of the effects of discrimination”, as seen In the Matter of Westwind Group of Oregon , a 1998 case in which a southeast Portland Burger King denied service to a customer based on race."

 

[Silhouette]

Definitely a case The ACLU should take on.

But they won't.

There are still easy remedies though. The defendants/Christians must simply turn the judge in for judicial misconduct. No sitting judge may order the silencing of anyone if that silencing 1. Has nothing to do with the case and 2. Seeks merely to cover the judge's ass for a shitty ruling. and 3. Suppresses someone's 1st Amendment rights without just cause.

Here are the links that these people (or anyone else in Oregon) can utilize to silence the judge instead: Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability : CJFD Home - CJFD Home

Easy to fill out form to launch an investigation into the judicial misconduct in this case: http://courts.oregon.gov/CJFD/docs/040105RevisedComplaintForm.pdf

Applicants should cite the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution, and provide a copy of the Ruling and if possible the transcripts of the hearing and any other documentation of the prosecution. These commissions take their jobs very seriously. They hold a very high standard of judicial conduct in order to preseve the public's faith in a fair and just judicial system. Bad judges make for bad countries.

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't a lawsuit, numbnuts.

Then how was the $135,000 fine determined, dipstick?

 

[paperview]

It wasn't a lawsuit, numbnuts.

Then how was the $135,000 fine determined, dipstick?

It wasn't a "fine."

Is reading the post just below that one too difficult for you?

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't a lawsuit, numbnuts.

Then how was the $135,000 fine determined, dipstick?

It wasn't a "fine."

Is reading the post just below that one too difficult for you?

If it wasn't a fine, then what happened to the jury trial?

 

[paperview]

BOLI’s Administrative Prosecution Unit is responsible for processing contested civil rights division cases pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and BOLI contested case hearing rules.

...

BOLI protects all Oregonians from unlawful discrimination, investigating allegations of civil rights violations in workplaces, career schools, housing and public accommodations.


http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-...e_gresham_bakers_discriminated_illegally.html