Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[kaz]

The ACLU has already come out with a blanket statement, that it will not sue on behalf of Christians.
We live in a seek and destroy environment now, where our rights have been removed to make room for liberal tyranny. You are guilty without the benefit of a court of your peers. We have become targets, without the right to live our lives as we choose. Anybody can force you to live your life according to their standards now.

This is just the beginning.

Yes, they fight for the left, they stopped defending the actual Bill of Rights long ago

 

[Hossfly]

and THIS is just the Beginning. Bakers and EVERYONE in this country is now OPEN season to be sued. way to go didn't take long DID IT? freaking ACLU was just sitting back CHOMPING AT bit for this ruling over us

SNIP:

BREAKING: ACLU To Sue Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couple On Religious Grounds…

Update: More via local reporter Theo Keith:

all of it here:
BREAKING ACLU To Sue Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couple On Religious Grounds Weasel Zippers

Not everyone. Just those who are breaking the law.

These days the Courts are the lawbreakers. They've been emboldened by the Traitor Barack Hussein Obama, the Devils handmaiden.

 

[Cecilie1200]

and THIS is just the Beginning. Bakers and EVERYONE in this country is now OPEN season to be sued. way to go didn't take long DID IT?

SNIP:
BREAKING: ACLU To Sue Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couple On Religious Grounds…

Update: More via local reporter Theo Keith:

ALL of it here:
BREAKING: ACLU To Sue Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couple On Religious Grounds…

Update: More via local reporter Theo Keith:

all of it here:
BREAKING ACLU To Sue Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couple On Religious Grounds Weasel Zippers

It will all reach a tipping point, it's inevitable. We have friends that have been pretty quiet up until lately and they are now starting to speak out. I sense their anger

this is all like a nightmare. I didn't think I'd see it in my lifetime. my gawd we are being TRAMPLED on. that's what putting in Obama was suppose to accomplish. he said: TRANSFORM America and the people fell for it

OMG OMG frinken franken Obama!!

Any particular reason why you love evil shit, Guno?

Oh, I'm sorry, where are my manners? Let me introduce you to Guno, because if you have to ask, you must not have met him.

 

[Obiwan]

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

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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 defendants consent.

Yes, and while a general gag order can be issued for a specific period of time for an overriding reason (like avoiding tainting the jury pool during an ongoing trial), just imposing it indefinitely because you don't like hearing it talked about is not acceptable.

 

[paperview]

...
The specific order reads: “The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation.”
...

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

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

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

It's 122 pages long. Yow.

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

this Oregon LAW:

"...it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]

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

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

From the Order:

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

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

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

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

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

Don't like it? Change the law.

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

Boo Hoo.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Stop breaking the law:

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]"

 

[paperview]

Yup. (beat ya too it.

 

[Preacher]

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.

 

[HenryBHough]

Definitely a case The ACLU should take on.

But they won't.

 

[Preacher]

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

Scumbag is a liar as well. I bet they served plenty of lesbian and homosexuals before they just refused to serve a WEDDING for homosexuals so no its not about their orientation but about their goal of redefining what marriage is,has been and always will be to NORMAL people. They got a good chance at getting this garbage ruling overturned...don't stop fighting!

 

[The Irish Ram]

If the ACLU took the case it would be for the gays. They are refusing to represent Christians whose civil liberties have been removed. I believe it was the ACLU who said a Christian should only be allowed to practice their faith in church. While Muslims are insisting that we recognize their religion as part of American Law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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. Answers are here: Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If the ACLU took the case it would be for the gays. They are refusing to represent Christians whose civil liberties have been removed. I believe it was the ACLU who said a Christian should only be allowed to practice their faith in church. While Muslims are insisting that we recognize their religion as part of American Law.

Anti
Christian
Lawyers
Union

 

[Preacher]

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the ACLU took the case it would be for the gays. They are refusing to represent Christians whose civil liberties have been removed. I believe it was the ACLU who said a Christian should only be allowed to practice their faith in church. While Muslims are insisting that we recognize their religion as part of American Law.

Anti
Christian
Lawyers
Union

Not even close, as they defend Christians as well...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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]"

 

[Preacher]

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

Ore. Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbians

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

Don't break the law...

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

A law was broken:

659A.409

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited

• 
  
  
  • • age exceptions

"Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Ore. Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbians

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

Don't break the law...

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

A law was broken:

659A.409

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited

• 
  
  
  • • age exceptions

"Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]"

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

 

[Preacher]

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

Ore. Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbians

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

Don't break the law...

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

A law was broken:

659A.409

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited

• 
  
  
  • • age exceptions

"Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]"

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

Fascinating they still didn't break it. The politician himself says WHY he claims they broke it which is completely wrong of what both the normal cake makers have said and the mentally ill carpet munchers said happened.