Constitution???? What Constitution?

[Nosmo King]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

If karma dallies in intellectual pursuit I will be rewarded by the universe and you will have to answer make up the way, I'm a happy heterosexual man who happens to be an American citizen well versed in our constitutional system of governance. I understand discrimination when I see it and I am not prone to pervert either my faith or my constitution to preserve discriminatory practices, unlike so many self righteous Conservatives who claim they love America but clearly disdain Americans..

 

[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

If gag orders ever applied to you.....imagine how much amusement I would forfeit.

It is the conservative element which seeks to, and does in the case presented, silence speech and expression. Those old enough to remember the Nixon Administration's veep, the criminal Spiro Agnew, and his claims about the press, echoed ever since by right wingers. Followed shortly by the censorship of the Smother's Brothers Comedy Hour.

But the First Amendment has been under attack by conservatives of every era:

The Free Expression Policy Project

 

[Camp]

Are these so-called Christians using a good law and a beautiful religion to serve bad purposes? First, they claim their Christian faith demands that they discriminate and demean homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and that is not one of the tenets of my faith. My Christianity calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, infirmed and imprisoned. My faith calls on humans to love their neighbor as they would love themselves. It also admonishes us to 'judge not lest we be judged'. But there is some dogma that admonishes homosexuality. Somehow that obscure bit of scripture has been elevated to a primary tenet of Christianity. This is using a beautiful faith to serve an ignoble purpose.

Then these same self-righteous so-called Christians use the 1st amendment to defend their bigotry under the aegis of freedom of religion. Can homophobia be seen as part and parcel of the worshipping Christian doctrine? Can a newly discovered bit of Christian dogma be sufficient to deny equality to fellow American citizens? This is using a good law to a bad purpose.

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Shocker!

Congress making laws that infract the Constitution.

And there are judges who say black is white and up is down....and 'established by the state' means 'established by the federal government.'


I honor the Constitution as the law of the land.

You don't.

And as long as there are more folks like you than like me.....America is doomed.

State, county and municipal judges invoke gag rules. Federal judges do as well. And gag orders have been upheld by higher courts upon appeal. Congress did not make laws that "infract" the constitution which you claim to honor but fail to understand.

As long as there are folks like you, folks like me will have to slowly and simply explain the folly of your warped thinking.

SPOT ON!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Shocker!

Congress making laws that infract the Constitution.

And there are judges who say black is white and up is down....and 'established by the state' means 'established by the federal government.'


I honor the Constitution as the law of the land.

You don't.

And as long as there are more folks like you than like me.....America is doomed.

State, county and municipal judges invoke gag rules. Federal judges do as well. And gag orders have been upheld by higher courts upon appeal. Congress did not make laws that "infract" the constitution which you claim to honor but fail to understand.

As long as there are folks like you, folks like me will have to slowly and simply explain the folly of your warped thinking.

"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."
Need I identify the source of the above?
Is an explanation of the importance of same to America necessary?



For clarity, and so that I may address you correctly .....

...are your really, really stupid....

.....or a fascist?

Congress may not, but a message board, a school board and legislative bodies do all the time. The Supreme Court can, if five members each holding a political ideology in common can, allowing a simple majority to legislate from the bench.

Putting the onus on liberals alone is beyond partisan rhetoric, it is dishonest, and PoliticalChic is to her core. Her constant personal attacks on the intelligence of others is a form of individual fascism - silence anyone who challenges her, for she actually believes she is superior in every manner as are all narsisstic personalities.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

If gag orders ever applied to you.....imagine how much amusement I would forfeit.

It is the conservative element which seeks to, and does in the case presented, silence speech and expression. Those old enough to remember the Nixon Administration's veep, the criminal Spiro Agnew, and his claims about the press, echoed ever since by right wingers. Followed shortly by the censorship of the Smother's Brothers Comedy Hour.

But the First Amendment has been under attack by conservatives of every era:

The Free Expression Policy Project

"It is the conservative element which seeks to, and does in the case presented, silence speech and expression."

Well....let's see.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You change the subject means I win, huh?

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Shocker!

Congress making laws that infract the Constitution.

And there are judges who say black is white and up is down....and 'established by the state' means 'established by the federal government.'


I honor the Constitution as the law of the land.

You don't.

And as long as there are more folks like you than like me.....America is doomed.

State, county and municipal judges invoke gag rules. Federal judges do as well. And gag orders have been upheld by higher courts upon appeal. Congress did not make laws that "infract" the constitution which you claim to honor but fail to understand.

As long as there are folks like you, folks like me will have to slowly and simply explain the folly of your warped thinking.

"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."
Need I identify the source of the above?
Is an explanation of the importance of same to America necessary?



For clarity, and so that I may address you correctly .....

...are your really, really stupid....

.....or a fascist?

Congress may not, but a message board, a school board and legislative bodies do all the time. The Supreme Court can, if five members each holding a political ideology in common can, allowing a simple majority to legislate from the bench.

Putting the onus on liberals alone is beyond partisan rhetoric, it is dishonest, and PoliticalChic is to her core. Her constant personal attacks on the intelligence of others is a form of individual fascism - silence anyone who challenges her, for she actually believes she is superior in every manner as are all narsisstic personalities.

It's the totalitarians called Liberals or Progressives or Democrats.

No?

Put some effort into this instead of your usual hot air.


Examples of conservatives shutting folks up?

None.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

 

[Ernie S.]

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,

No, but his right to express his opinions is just as sacrosanct.

Well, you idiot, The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, deals with businesses, not random folks speaking their opinion.

I can hardly wait for a case to go to SCOTUS. I see where actually discriminating against someone could be prosecuted, but saying you would hardly violates anyone's rights?

This is about whether you can put a sign in the window of your business saying 'We don't serve blacks'.

My guess would be that the Supreme Court will say no, you can't.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

 

[Camp]

No, you lost several posts ago. Gag orders are legal, they are not written by congress so there is no constitutional conflict.

But you should understand the foundation of the issue, i.e. using good laws to serve bad purposes.

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

You have had the difference between a gag order and a cease and desist order explained to you repeatedly, but to acknowledge an understanding of the difference in those terms destroys your OP, concept, ideas and opinions. You just make believe there is no difference. That is just intellectually dishonest. It makes your entire position fraudulent. They facts you give are meaningless because they do not relate to the topic.
Are you to stupid to understand that a gag order is an order for participants in an ongoing case to be silent about the case so as to not tarnish and influence potential jurors and witnesses and a cease and desist order is an order by the court to cease and desist a specific activity because the activity is alleged to be illegal or on schedule to be heard by a court as to the legality of the activity or prevent harm from the activity.
This entire cease and desist case against the Klein's was about a flyer they placed on the window of their closed bakery after reaching agreement in court informing the public they were still in business, but had moved the operation to their home, and announcing publicly that they would disregard the court and continue to discriminate. In addition they were advertising their business online. This was a violation of their agreement with the court that determined the outcome of a law suite. When the court learned the Klein's were violating their agreement an order was sent to them demanding they cease and desist or face an alteration of their penalties and fines.

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,


Well, you idiot, The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, deals with businesses, not random folks speaking their opinion.

I can hardly wait for a case to go to SCOTUS. I see where actually discriminating against someone could be prosecuted, but saying you would hardly violates anyone's rights?

This is about whether you can put a sign in the window of your business saying 'We don't serve blacks'.

My guess would be that the Supreme Court will say no, you can't.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

The difference is that the bakery case was settled in court. There is no longer a debate between the law and the bakers. The highest courts have settled the question. If the bakers don't like it they can work towards changing the laws. What they can not do is ignore the courts ruling.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was wondering if you would verify the rumor that you produce your own makeup from recycled medical wastes, mostly blood and bile.

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

You have had the difference between a gag order and a cease and desist order explained to you repeatedly, but to acknowledge an understanding of the difference in those terms destroys your OP, concept, ideas and opinions. You just make believe there is no difference. That is just intellectually dishonest. It makes your entire position fraudulent. They facts you give are meaningless because they do not relate to the topic.
Are you to stupid to understand that a gag order is an order for participants in an ongoing case to be silent about the case so as to not tarnish and influence potential jurors and witnesses and a cease and desist order is an order by the court to cease and desist a specific activity because the activity is alleged to be illegal or on schedule to be heard by a court as to the legality of the activity or prevent harm from the activity.
This entire cease and desist case against the Klein's was about a flyer they placed on the window of their closed bakery after reaching agreement in court informing the public they were still in business, but had moved the operation to their home, and announcing publicly that they would disregard the court and continue to discriminate. In addition they were advertising their business online. This was a violation of their agreement with the court that determined the outcome of a law suite. When the court learned the Klein's were violating their agreement an order was sent to them demanding they cease and desist or face an alteration of their penalties and fines.

I can hardly wait for a case to go to SCOTUS. I see where actually discriminating against someone could be prosecuted, but saying you would hardly violates anyone's rights?

This is about whether you can put a sign in the window of your business saying 'We don't serve blacks'.

My guess would be that the Supreme Court will say no, you can't.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

The difference is that the bakery case was settled in court. There is no longer a debate between the law and the bakers. The highest courts have settled the question. If the bakers don't like it they can work towards changing the laws. What they can not do is ignore the courts ruling.

1. "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."


2. Gag order on Governor Scott Walker's supporters: " The investigation is taking place under Wisconsin's John Doe law, which barsa 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 thegag orders leave the targets facing the resources of the state with no way to publicly defend themselves."
Review Outlook Wisconsin Political Speech Raid - WSJ


3. Gag Orders on clergy: . " Churches and other nonprofits are strictlyprohibited fromengaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).
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.


4.Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan believes in banning free speech: In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it maybe proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

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


6. . Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the publicalso infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged.At least one court has ruled gag orders on trial participants are as serious as those on the press and subject to the same strict test for constitutionality.
Introduction -- What to do if a court issues a gag order Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press


7. Obama Gag Order on any discussion of guns online: The proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech.This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Obama To Circumvent Congress With Gag Order On Firearm Coverage


Clear to everyone that you simply could not come up with comparable examples.

Is that because you're
a. really stupid
b. a fascist

or...Your argument, like the Hindenburg....up in the air at first, then it blows apart.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is that what you consider an argument? And you call me names! What gall you have!

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

You have had the difference between a gag order and a cease and desist order explained to you repeatedly, but to acknowledge an understanding of the difference in those terms destroys your OP, concept, ideas and opinions. You just make believe there is no difference. That is just intellectually dishonest. It makes your entire position fraudulent. They facts you give are meaningless because they do not relate to the topic.
Are you to stupid to understand that a gag order is an order for participants in an ongoing case to be silent about the case so as to not tarnish and influence potential jurors and witnesses and a cease and desist order is an order by the court to cease and desist a specific activity because the activity is alleged to be illegal or on schedule to be heard by a court as to the legality of the activity or prevent harm from the activity.
This entire cease and desist case against the Klein's was about a flyer they placed on the window of their closed bakery after reaching agreement in court informing the public they were still in business, but had moved the operation to their home, and announcing publicly that they would disregard the court and continue to discriminate. In addition they were advertising their business online. This was a violation of their agreement with the court that determined the outcome of a law suite. When the court learned the Klein's were violating their agreement an order was sent to them demanding they cease and desist or face an alteration of their penalties and fines.

I can hardly wait for a case to go to SCOTUS. I see where actually discriminating against someone could be prosecuted, but saying you would hardly violates anyone's rights?

This is about whether you can put a sign in the window of your business saying 'We don't serve blacks'.

My guess would be that the Supreme Court will say no, you can't.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

The difference is that the bakery case was settled in court. There is no longer a debate between the law and the bakers. The highest courts have settled the question. If the bakers don't like it they can work towards changing the laws. What they can not do is ignore the courts ruling.

1. "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."


.

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

 

[Ernie S.]

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

You have had the difference between a gag order and a cease and desist order explained to you repeatedly, but to acknowledge an understanding of the difference in those terms destroys your OP, concept, ideas and opinions. You just make believe there is no difference. That is just intellectually dishonest. It makes your entire position fraudulent. They facts you give are meaningless because they do not relate to the topic.
Are you to stupid to understand that a gag order is an order for participants in an ongoing case to be silent about the case so as to not tarnish and influence potential jurors and witnesses and a cease and desist order is an order by the court to cease and desist a specific activity because the activity is alleged to be illegal or on schedule to be heard by a court as to the legality of the activity or prevent harm from the activity.
This entire cease and desist case against the Klein's was about a flyer they placed on the window of their closed bakery after reaching agreement in court informing the public they were still in business, but had moved the operation to their home, and announcing publicly that they would disregard the court and continue to discriminate. In addition they were advertising their business online. This was a violation of their agreement with the court that determined the outcome of a law suite. When the court learned the Klein's were violating their agreement an order was sent to them demanding they cease and desist or face an alteration of their penalties and fines.

I can hardly wait for a case to go to SCOTUS. I see where actually discriminating against someone could be prosecuted, but saying you would hardly violates anyone's rights?

This is about whether you can put a sign in the window of your business saying 'We don't serve blacks'.

My guess would be that the Supreme Court will say no, you can't.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

The difference is that the bakery case was settled in court. There is no longer a debate between the law and the bakers. The highest courts have settled the question. If the bakers don't like it they can work towards changing the laws. What they can not do is ignore the courts ruling.

1. "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."


.

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

You have had the difference between a gag order and a cease and desist order explained to you repeatedly, but to acknowledge an understanding of the difference in those terms destroys your OP, concept, ideas and opinions. You just make believe there is no difference. That is just intellectually dishonest. It makes your entire position fraudulent. They facts you give are meaningless because they do not relate to the topic.
Are you to stupid to understand that a gag order is an order for participants in an ongoing case to be silent about the case so as to not tarnish and influence potential jurors and witnesses and a cease and desist order is an order by the court to cease and desist a specific activity because the activity is alleged to be illegal or on schedule to be heard by a court as to the legality of the activity or prevent harm from the activity.
This entire cease and desist case against the Klein's was about a flyer they placed on the window of their closed bakery after reaching agreement in court informing the public they were still in business, but had moved the operation to their home, and announcing publicly that they would disregard the court and continue to discriminate. In addition they were advertising their business online. This was a violation of their agreement with the court that determined the outcome of a law suite. When the court learned the Klein's were violating their agreement an order was sent to them demanding they cease and desist or face an alteration of their penalties and fines.

This is about whether you can put a sign in the window of your business saying 'We don't serve blacks'.

My guess would be that the Supreme Court will say no, you can't.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

The difference is that the bakery case was settled in court. There is no longer a debate between the law and the bakers. The highest courts have settled the question. If the bakers don't like it they can work towards changing the laws. What they can not do is ignore the courts ruling.

1. "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."


.

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

Why did the Kleins refuse to bake the cake?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

You have had the difference between a gag order and a cease and desist order explained to you repeatedly, but to acknowledge an understanding of the difference in those terms destroys your OP, concept, ideas and opinions. You just make believe there is no difference. That is just intellectually dishonest. It makes your entire position fraudulent. They facts you give are meaningless because they do not relate to the topic.
Are you to stupid to understand that a gag order is an order for participants in an ongoing case to be silent about the case so as to not tarnish and influence potential jurors and witnesses and a cease and desist order is an order by the court to cease and desist a specific activity because the activity is alleged to be illegal or on schedule to be heard by a court as to the legality of the activity or prevent harm from the activity.
This entire cease and desist case against the Klein's was about a flyer they placed on the window of their closed bakery after reaching agreement in court informing the public they were still in business, but had moved the operation to their home, and announcing publicly that they would disregard the court and continue to discriminate. In addition they were advertising their business online. This was a violation of their agreement with the court that determined the outcome of a law suite. When the court learned the Klein's were violating their agreement an order was sent to them demanding they cease and desist or face an alteration of their penalties and fines.

I can hardly wait for a case to go to SCOTUS. I see where actually discriminating against someone could be prosecuted, but saying you would hardly violates anyone's rights?

This is about whether you can put a sign in the window of your business saying 'We don't serve blacks'.

My guess would be that the Supreme Court will say no, you can't.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

The difference is that the bakery case was settled in court. There is no longer a debate between the law and the bakers. The highest courts have settled the question. If the bakers don't like it they can work towards changing the laws. What they can not do is ignore the courts ruling.

1. "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."


.

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Folks like you are the reason this nation has to put directions on shampoo.

 

[Ernie S.]

I just gave a half dozen linked examples of you fascists aiming to shut Americans up.

Let's see your examples.

You have had the difference between a gag order and a cease and desist order explained to you repeatedly, but to acknowledge an understanding of the difference in those terms destroys your OP, concept, ideas and opinions. You just make believe there is no difference. That is just intellectually dishonest. It makes your entire position fraudulent. They facts you give are meaningless because they do not relate to the topic.
Are you to stupid to understand that a gag order is an order for participants in an ongoing case to be silent about the case so as to not tarnish and influence potential jurors and witnesses and a cease and desist order is an order by the court to cease and desist a specific activity because the activity is alleged to be illegal or on schedule to be heard by a court as to the legality of the activity or prevent harm from the activity.
This entire cease and desist case against the Klein's was about a flyer they placed on the window of their closed bakery after reaching agreement in court informing the public they were still in business, but had moved the operation to their home, and announcing publicly that they would disregard the court and continue to discriminate. In addition they were advertising their business online. This was a violation of their agreement with the court that determined the outcome of a law suite. When the court learned the Klein's were violating their agreement an order was sent to them demanding they cease and desist or face an alteration of their penalties and fines.

The bakery has not said it will not serve gays. They will bake you Bar Mitzvahs cakes. birthday cakes, cakes for nearly any special occasion EXCEPT for occasions their religious view forbids their participation in.
There's a very specific difference there.
I own a bar. A gay black guy comes into my establishment and orders a beer; I draw him a beer. He comes into my bar with a pistol on his hip and orders a beer; I do not draw him a beer. I did not refuse to serve him because he was black or gay, I refused service because my principles won't allow him to carry a weapon in my bar.

The difference is that the bakery case was settled in court. There is no longer a debate between the law and the bakers. The highest courts have settled the question. If the bakers don't like it they can work towards changing the laws. What they can not do is ignore the courts ruling.

1. "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."


.

You've repeated this lie 10 times now. 100 times more won't make it the truth.

Another one that thinks this is discrimination based on the fact that the women were lesbians.

They would have gotten a birthday cake, no problem.

Why did the Kleins refuse to bake the cake?

Because they could not participate in a wedding their religion views as an abomination.

They could have bought a birthday cake regardless of their sexual preference. The Klein's religion does not forbid participation in birthday parties.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Setting the record straight: the Liberals/fascists are so ashamed about the gag order, they are trying to spin it.....

There is a gag order.




"Oregon Labor Commission Brad Avakian did, in fact, issue this order (pdf), concluding that Sweet Cakes was guilty of discrimination and ordering the owners to pay $135,000 in damages. As part of the findings, Avakian noted that the owners had made clear that they intend to continue to discriminate going forward.

In Slate, Mark Joseph Stern explained why that matters:

Noting that the Kleins had run afoul of Oregon law by asserting their intention to keep discriminating against gay couples, Avakian proposed a simple solution: Stop doing that. Rather than fine the Kleins further, Avakian wrote that the couple must “cease and desist” stating that Sweet Cakes would continue to turn away gay couples. As individuals, the Kleins may declare that Oregon’s anti-discrimination law should not protect gay couples. But when speaking publicly about the future of their own business, they must not opine that they will maintain a policy of anti-gay discrimination. […]

There is nothing in Avakian’s order that bars the Kleins from talking about the ruling. They can rail against it, march against its injustice, and pen Facebook screeds complaining about anti-discrimination law. What they cannot do is proclaim (publicly!) that their business will not serve gay couples."
The anti-gay bakery and the non-existent gag order MSNBC

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


1. "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."

Let me quote what Avakian actually said in the order, so we can stop having to read PC's repeated lie:

"...the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing, or displaying, or causing 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 a 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 sexual orientation."

Now, I know the sane among us can see the difference? What about the rest of you?