Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[NYcarbineer]

According to the actual order there isn't.

Which is more authoritative, the actual order or what someone tells you about the order?
>>>>

You have the link?

Posted in the thread by Paperview. Apparently state law forbids a business from putting up a sign saying "we hate xxxxx" or something to that order. Which is silly, IMO, but it most certainly isn't a gag order forbidding these two bakers from discussing the case.

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Here, you can read the Oregon law verbatim, and then tell us where it says what you think it says:

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]

 

[bodecea]

Well well, Squashing the rights of the people seems to be the order in the state of Oregon. AND you sit and say NOTHING. and others start threads Cheering it

SNIP:
Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case
By Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives July 3, 2015

​

I don’t know if you’ve followed the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. This is the now-closed bakery in Oregon that has become a target of state officials because its Christian owners declined to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.

Not only has the business been forced to close, the state has fined the Kleins $135,000. But it gets worse. Much worse. Now that state has responded to a radio interview the Kleins gave by ordering them to no longer talk publicly about why their faith compels them to decline such business.

We’ve been telling you for some time now that this gay wedding business is little more than a cover for Fascism. Some of you thought that was way overblown. Can you still doubt it after this?

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.

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.”

all of it here:
Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

I just debunked the "gag order" bullshit in another thread.

The story is fake - you FAIL.

Truth doesn't seem to matter to them. The hell with that Commandment about bearing false witness.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

 

[Preacher]

And to make an example of them for intimidation purposes. Its crystal clear that the State is saying they will bully you, slap a gag order on you, and try to destroy you financially if you dare disagree with their world view.

Society has rules, obey them or face the consequences...

LOL. When are you going to demand immigration laws be enforced?

They already are, just not at the level you want, which would crash the economy, raise taxes hugely, and require the confiscation of hundreds of miles of private property at the border. When are you going to start thinking like an adult?

Oh my. You're worse than chicken little.

Nope. I've looked into it, you not so much. What it takes to deport 11 million or so people is not for the faint of heart. Check it out, start here: Deporting 11 Million People Could Cost 400-600 Billion Study Finds - The Atlantic

Simple. Offer them free money all democrats love that,round them up in cattle cars,give them ALL sterilization shots so they can't breed any more mexishits and then deport them with tags inserted under skin. ANY caught recrossing border are shot on sight. Enough of the kid gloves shit.

 

[dblack]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

They aren't free to express their values via their economic decisions. This is the moral equivalent of outlawing consumer boycotts when they're for the wrong reasons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

They aren't free to express their values via their economic decisions. This is the moral equivalent of outlawing consumer boycotts when they're for the wrong reasons.

That is not even close to comparable to a consumer boycott.

 

[dblack]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

They aren't free to express their values via their economic decisions. This is the moral equivalent of outlawing consumer boycotts when they're for the wrong reasons.

That is not even close to comparable to a consumer boycott.

Well, you first need the capacity to comprehend arguments based on principle, but yeah, it is quite comparable. If it's wrong for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for someone because they're gay, why wouldn't it be wrong for a consumer to refuse to buy a cake from someone because they're gay? They're depriving another of an economic transaction because of their sexual preference. Where's the moral difference there? To be clear, I'm not talking about Constitutionality here, so don't bother with the commerce clause.

Maybe a slight tweak on the scenario would make it more clear for you. Let's say we're considering strictly barter transactions. Let's say we have a baker in a small village who bakes cakes for people in exchange for goods or services in trade. And let's say there's a gay barber in town. One day, the baker needs a hair cut and the barber offers him a hair cut in exchange for a cake. The barber considers the trade, but on discovering that the barber is gay refuses to let a "queer" cut his hair. Should he be allowed to refuse to the barber's services for that reason?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

They aren't free to express their values via their economic decisions. This is the moral equivalent of outlawing consumer boycotts when they're for the wrong reasons.

That is not even close to comparable to a consumer boycott.

Well, you first need the capacity to comprehend arguments based on principle, but yeah, it is quite comparable. If it's wrong for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for someone because they're gay, why wouldn't it be wrong for a consumer to refuse to buy a cake from someone because they're gay? They're depriving another of an economic transaction because of their sexual preference. Where's the moral difference there? To be clear, I'm not talking about Constitutionality here, so don't bother with the commerce clause.

Maybe a slight tweak on the scenario would make it more clear for you. Let's say we're considering strictly barter transactions. Let's say we have a baker in a small village who bakes cakes for people in exchange for goods or services in trade. And let's say there's a gay barber in town. One day, the baker needs a hair cut and the barber offers him a hair cut in exchange for a cake. The barber considers the trade, but on discovering that the barber is gay refuses to let a "queer" cut his hair. Should he be allowed to refuse to the barber's services for that reason?

Wow! That's going to keep me awake all night......

 

[dblack]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

They aren't free to express their values via their economic decisions. This is the moral equivalent of outlawing consumer boycotts when they're for the wrong reasons.

That is not even close to comparable to a consumer boycott.

Well, you first need the capacity to comprehend arguments based on principle, but yeah, it is quite comparable. If it's wrong for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for someone because they're gay, why wouldn't it be wrong for a consumer to refuse to buy a cake from someone because they're gay? They're depriving another of an economic transaction because of their sexual preference. Where's the moral difference there? To be clear, I'm not talking about Constitutionality here, so don't bother with the commerce clause.

Maybe a slight tweak on the scenario would make it more clear for you. Let's say we're considering strictly barter transactions. Let's say we have a baker in a small village who bakes cakes for people in exchange for goods or services in trade. And let's say there's a gay barber in town. One day, the baker needs a hair cut and the barber offers him a hair cut in exchange for a cake. The barber considers the trade, but on discovering that the barber is gay refuses to let a "queer" cut his hair. Should he be allowed to refuse to the barber's services for that reason?

Wow! That's going to keep me awake all night......

Keep trying, you'll get it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

Yes, I'm sure that the justices will take into account how many years ago it was passed, just like the DC handgun law. I'm sure they are intimidated by how "settled" a law is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

Yes, I'm sure that the justices will take into account how many years ago it was passed, just like the DC handgun law. I'm sure they are intimidated by how "settled" a law is.

If you knew anything about the court you'd know that your statement is more true than not, and considering that they have already turned away challenges to laws like these, you aren't living in the real world:Supreme Court Declines To Hear New Mexico Gay Wedding Photography Case

 

[PostmodernProph]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

???.....so was the definition of marriage.....

 

[Seawytch]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

???.....so was the definition of marriage.....

It was? Funny...60 years ago blacks couldn't marry whites. Guess it wasn't as "settled" as you think, eh?

 

[PostmodernProph]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

???.....so was the definition of marriage.....

It was? Funny...60 years ago blacks couldn't marry whites. Guess it wasn't as "settled" as you think, eh?

the definition of marriage wasn't in question at that time......that's why the southern states had to pass laws prohibiting blacks from marrying whites to keep it from happening......nobody had to pass laws prohibiting two men from getting married until the Mass. SC changed the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex......

 

[Nosmo King]

What rights were infringed upon specifically? How was this bakery "attacked" by homosexuals? How did homosexual customers keep the bakery from worshiping God? Did they attack and burn the church?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The order prevents them from discussing their views on providing services to gay weddings with the media.

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

???.....so was the definition of marriage.....

It was? Funny...60 years ago blacks couldn't marry whites. Guess it wasn't as "settled" as you think, eh?

Bullshit.

 

[Seawytch]

No it doesn't.

They are free to discuss their views on providing services to any customer (including homosexuals).

The law (from which the order is derived) means that shops can't post signs saying "We don't serve Jews", "We don't serve Blacks", "We don't serve spics", or "We don't serve faggots".

From the order:

“Respondents assert that ORS 659A.409 prohibits Respondents from "express[ing] their own position" and that ORS 659A.409 amounts to "a speech code.". To the contrary, the language of ORS 659A.409 focuses on the discriminatory effect that accompanies certain speech "published, circulated, issued or displayed" on behalf of a place of public accommodation. It does not cover expressions of personal opinion, political commentary, or other privileged communicates unrelated to the business of a place of public accommodation, and it's breadth is narrowly tailored to address the effects of the speech issue."


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>​

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

???.....so was the definition of marriage.....

It was? Funny...60 years ago blacks couldn't marry whites. Guess it wasn't as "settled" as you think, eh?

Bullshit.

Nope...true shit. You've heard of Loving v Virginia, yes?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And now that silly law will itself be put on trial. When federal public accommodation laws are struck down, then states will feel free to do likewise to their own laws. Congrats Leftwats, you poked the bear.

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

???.....so was the definition of marriage.....

It was? Funny...60 years ago blacks couldn't marry whites. Guess it wasn't as "settled" as you think, eh?

Bullshit.

Nope...true shit. You've heard of Loving v Virginia, yes?

Glad to see you're still alive and well...

Blacks and whites have married throughout the history of this country, even if not recognized in all states, a fact that renders your claim bullshit. So I was correct.

 

[Seawytch]

In just what fantasy-world of your creation do you believe that such a thing is possible? This was settle law 60 laws ago.

???.....so was the definition of marriage.....

It was? Funny...60 years ago blacks couldn't marry whites. Guess it wasn't as "settled" as you think, eh?

Bullshit.

Nope...true shit. You've heard of Loving v Virginia, yes?

Glad to see you're still alive and well...

Blacks and whites have married throughout the history of this country, even if not recognized in all states, a fact that renders your claim bullshit. So I was correct.

Oh, you mean in churches like gay folks have been doing for decades?

Completely separate issue.