Religion vs law

[BDBoop]

If you argue from are why do you misrepresent the laws as applying to delivery services when they only apply to places?

You are wrong about the laws, you are trying to defend something you don't understand, and you claim you don't even like the laws.

I hate the laws, but I know exactly what they say, and what is required to run afoul of them.

I never said anything about the complaint, I made a claim about the response. You then claimed the response agreed with the complaint, and insisted you read it. I proved you couldn't have by linking to the BLI site which states that the law prohibits releasing any documents until the case is closed. I even linked to the BLI site where it defines a public accommodation as a place.

Twice.

Try again.

You mock, shame, belittle and badger people when they have done you no harm.

Guilty.

What makes you 'okay' is being right and having the last word, when what should make you 'okay' is knowing who you are in Christ Jesus, as a person of faith.

I don't need the last word, even if I do like being right, The thing here is that WW is wrong, and needs to see it for himself. He even tried to argue that a case in New Mexico applies to the situation in Oregon.

 

[Cecilie1200]

businesses should be run the way the owner sees fit
its THEIR business

I would love nothing more than to totally agree with you, bu oil would be 100 bucks a gallon right now if that were the case.

My argument is that they commingle corporate with private affairs under the guise of public interest when there is no injury being done to the public.

Businesses created under the government should be regulated by government until it remove the choices of individuals to govern their private affairs.

For instance stepping over the line is the requirement for business to get a social security number from you and to withhold money from your checks effectively forcing businesses to being a tax collecting arm of the government and removing your choices.

By placing these requirements in the hands of uninterested parties, the company that will fire you the second its more profitable to do so infringes upon you and harms you personally.

However it serves the purpose of government achieving its ends by getting around the laws.

privileges and immunities are essentially rules that the government will uphold that gets around the laws, hence the name privileges and immunities.

Actually, it would probably be somewhere around $2 a gallon if big oil had its druthers. The higher price is because the government mandates that refineries blend in a minimum amount of ethanol into their gasoline, even though there isn't that much ethanol in the entire world.

And let's not forget the way the government taxes the shit out of it to line its own pockets.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the dumbest thing i've ever read.

as for the owners, if they are a public accommodation i don't believe they have the right to discriminate - so i believe they should rent out their facility. i don't think they should be made to plan the ceremony, but their facility must be made available to all per iowa law.

You don't believe people have rights unless you like what they do with them?

i believe that iowa law is clear. if you disagree, work to change that law.

Gotta love the liberal "it's the law, therefore it should be the law" argument, not to mention the belief that law = moral. This is what you get when you have no innate sense of right and wrong, I guess.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That wasn't my question, was it? Either own the opinion with pride, or blame it on the law. Your choice.

i believe that public businesses should have to abide by the law. i believe that laws should exist that do not allow for discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.

i own that opinion with pride.

What if the law says that they can't serve people because of their skin color, should businesses obey their law, or should people be able to follow their conscious? Is it only laws you personally support they should follow, or should they always follow the law even when it is wrong?

You know that leftists don't understand any question predicated on the assumption of independent thought, right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since the Sweetcakes case is still in the investigatory and decision making process by the BOLI, we need to examine a case that has gone through the process including appeals and final decisions.

Such a case would be Elane Photography v. Willock in which the New Mexico photographer was found to be in violation of the Public Accommodation laws for refusing services to a same-sex couple. Those services to be to shoot their wedding, services at the wedding/reception location.

Since photo shoots of weddings occur on site, your premise that such "out of storefront" services are not covered is incorrect.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/sc33687.pdf


>>>>

I don't need the last word, even if I do like being right, The thing here is that WW is wrong, and needs to see it for himself. He even tried to argue that a case in New Mexico applies to the situation in Oregon.

Wrong. I did not argue that the New Mexico case applies in Oregon.

I clearly indicate the reason for mentioning Elane Photograpy v. Willock, simply to refute your general premise that Public Accommodation laws don't apply to services that businesses provides when those services are part of their operations model but those services are not provided in the storefront.

Since the services in question in that case, wedding and reception photographs, are conducted at the consumers site and not the storefront and since that case had been adjudicated all the way to the New Mexico Supreme court and they still lost. Your premise is false.

I'm not aware of the Oregon BOLI has issued a ruling in that case and if they loose if they will decide to appeal.

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since the Sweetcakes case is still in the investigatory and decision making process by the BOLI, we need to examine a case that has gone through the process including appeals and final decisions.

Such a case would be Elane Photography v. Willock in which the New Mexico photographer was found to be in violation of the Public Accommodation laws for refusing services to a same-sex couple. Those services to be to shoot their wedding, services at the wedding/reception location.

Since photo shoots of weddings occur on site, your premise that such "out of storefront" services are not covered is incorrect.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/sc33687.pdf


>>>>

I don't need the last word, even if I do like being right, The thing here is that WW is wrong, and needs to see it for himself. He even tried to argue that a case in New Mexico applies to the situation in Oregon.

Wrong. I did not argue that the New Mexico case applies in Oregon.

I clearly indicate the reason for mentioning Elane Photograpy v. Willock, simply to refute your general premise that Public Accommodation laws don't apply to services that businesses provides when those services are part of their operations model but those services are not provided in the storefront.

Since the services in question in that case, wedding and reception photographs, are conducted at the consumers site and not the storefront and since that case had been adjudicated all the way to the New Mexico Supreme court and they still lost. Your premise is false.

I'm not aware of the Oregon BOLI has issued a ruling in that case and if they loose if they will decide to appeal.

>>>>

You didn't refute anything, my argument was based on the law in Oregon. Remember your argument about the law as is vs the law as it should be? Try using it consistently, and stop trying to divert into the overall debate about public accommodation laws, which suck.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You didn't refute anything, my argument was based on the law in Oregon. Remember your argument about the law as is vs the law as it should be? Try using it consistently, and stop trying to divert into the overall debate about public accommodation laws, which suck.

And since we are talking about the "Sweetcakes By Mellisa" (SBM) case, which is still under investigation and as far as I know a ruling has not been issued.

We can anticipate though what the ruling will be based on the law in Oregon. The law that defines a "Place of Public Accommodation" is:

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.400
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]

§ 659A.403
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
​

From a "Place" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, a "place" if you will. The first image below shows an interior shot of SBM front end and the second shows goods being created onsite behind the scenes. Therefore the goods were created onsite in the establishment in question. SBM operated a place of Public Accommodation offering as a functional part of their advertizing the creation of various custom cakes and wedding cakes were specifically cited in their advertizing and their site at the time provided information on wedding planners they had worked with in the past. Therefore under the "place" standard alone SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

From a "Service" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, if their business model included delivery and setup of wedding cakes at the customer location that would be a "Service" if you will. It would be very easy to determine if this service was offered in an administrative hearing. First, the Klein's could be brought to the stand to testify, and since this is a civil case and not a criminal case rules against self incrimination wouldn't apply (although perjury rules do since they would be under oath), about the operations of their business. Since we are talking about (at this stage) a court proceeding, their business records can be subpenaed and prior customers contacted to see if SBM provided onsite setup. If the Klein's testify that delivery and setup services are offered or if prior transaction history shows that these services are offered then that establishes what services are offered to different-sex couples. If the administrative hearing goes against them, they can still file an appeal with the Oregon Court system. Therefore under the "service" standard SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

***********************************

At the end of the day we cannot definitively say which way the case will go as BOLI has not (to my knowledge) issued a decision on the complaint and if such a decision goes against SBM whether they will appeal to first a formal administrative hearing and ultimately to Oregon's appeals and supreme court systems.

What can be said is that under Oregon law SBM qualifies as a "Place of Public Accommodation" and the complaint is that the establishment violated Oregon Statutes regarding Public Accommodations. In addition there is no "personal religious belief" exception cited in the law to allow their actions.



***********************************

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

With that, you sir can again claim that I'm wrong even though I've linked and quoted the case, linked and quoted the law in Oregon, and linked and quoted similar decisions from other jurisdictions.

Please remind the readers, what quotes and links to original documents have you provided to support your opinions again?


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You didn't refute anything, my argument was based on the law in Oregon. Remember your argument about the law as is vs the law as it should be? Try using it consistently, and stop trying to divert into the overall debate about public accommodation laws, which suck.

And since we are talking about the "Sweetcakes By Mellisa" (SBM) case, which is still under investigation and as far as I know a ruling has not been issued.

We can anticipate though what the ruling will be based on the law in Oregon. The law that defines a "Place of Public Accommodation" is:

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.400
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]

§ 659A.403
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
​

From a "Place" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, a "place" if you will. The first image below shows an interior shot of SBM front end and the second shows goods being created onsite behind the scenes. Therefore the goods were created onsite in the establishment in question. SBM operated a place of Public Accommodation offering as a functional part of their advertizing the creation of various custom cakes and wedding cakes were specifically cited in their advertizing and their site at the time provided information on wedding planners they had worked with in the past. Therefore under the "place" standard alone SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

From a "Service" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, if their business model included delivery and setup of wedding cakes at the customer location that would be a "Service" if you will. It would be very easy to determine if this service was offered in an administrative hearing. First, the Klein's could be brought to the stand to testify, and since this is a civil case and not a criminal case rules against self incrimination wouldn't apply (although perjury rules do since they would be under oath), about the operations of their business. Since we are talking about (at this stage) a court proceeding, their business records can be subpenaed and prior customers contacted to see if SBM provided onsite setup. If the Klein's testify that delivery and setup services are offered or if prior transaction history shows that these services are offered then that establishes what services are offered to different-sex couples. If the administrative hearing goes against them, they can still file an appeal with the Oregon Court system. Therefore under the "service" standard SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

***********************************

At the end of the day we cannot definitively say which way the case will go as BOLI has not (to my knowledge) issued a decision on the complaint and if such a decision goes against SBM whether they will appeal to first a formal administrative hearing and ultimately to Oregon's appeals and supreme court systems.

What can be said is that under Oregon law SBM qualifies as a "Place of Public Accommodation" and the complaint is that the establishment violated Oregon Statutes regarding Public Accommodations. In addition there is no "personal religious belief" exception cited in the law to allow their actions.



***********************************






>>>>

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent always applies, even in an "administrative hearing." I know the government doesn't like that, and will try to argue otherwise, but it still applies.

By the ay, I linked to the actual BLI website to prove that public accommodations are linked to a place, you are using conjecture and guesswork, with no legal citations to back your position up, apparently just to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Basically, under Oregon law, all the bakery has to prove is that they don't accept every single person that walks through there doors except for gays and they will win the case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You didn't refute anything, my argument was based on the law in Oregon. Remember your argument about the law as is vs the law as it should be? Try using it consistently, and stop trying to divert into the overall debate about public accommodation laws, which suck.

And since we are talking about the "Sweetcakes By Mellisa" (SBM) case, which is still under investigation and as far as I know a ruling has not been issued.

We can anticipate though what the ruling will be based on the law in Oregon. The law that defines a "Place of Public Accommodation" is:

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.400
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]

§ 659A.403
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
​

From a "Place" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, a "place" if you will. The first image below shows an interior shot of SBM front end and the second shows goods being created onsite behind the scenes. Therefore the goods were created onsite in the establishment in question. SBM operated a place of Public Accommodation offering as a functional part of their advertizing the creation of various custom cakes and wedding cakes were specifically cited in their advertizing and their site at the time provided information on wedding planners they had worked with in the past. Therefore under the "place" standard alone SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

From a "Service" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, if their business model included delivery and setup of wedding cakes at the customer location that would be a "Service" if you will. It would be very easy to determine if this service was offered in an administrative hearing. First, the Klein's could be brought to the stand to testify, and since this is a civil case and not a criminal case rules against self incrimination wouldn't apply (although perjury rules do since they would be under oath), about the operations of their business. Since we are talking about (at this stage) a court proceeding, their business records can be subpenaed and prior customers contacted to see if SBM provided onsite setup. If the Klein's testify that delivery and setup services are offered or if prior transaction history shows that these services are offered then that establishes what services are offered to different-sex couples. If the administrative hearing goes against them, they can still file an appeal with the Oregon Court system. Therefore under the "service" standard SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

***********************************

At the end of the day we cannot definitively say which way the case will go as BOLI has not (to my knowledge) issued a decision on the complaint and if such a decision goes against SBM whether they will appeal to first a formal administrative hearing and ultimately to Oregon's appeals and supreme court systems.

What can be said is that under Oregon law SBM qualifies as a "Place of Public Accommodation" and the complaint is that the establishment violated Oregon Statutes regarding Public Accommodations. In addition there is no "personal religious belief" exception cited in the law to allow their actions.



***********************************






>>>>

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent always applies, even in an "administrative hearing." I know the government doesn't like that, and will try to argue otherwise, but it still applies.

I stand corrected, yes people can invoke the 5th amendment, however unlike a criminal case where no negative inference can be drawn by refusing to answer questions, in a civil proceeding that is not true and a adverse decision can be based in part on such a refusal if the claimant provides sufficient evidence to support their claim.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...q1F_xmYnrvT6anyb2Q&bvm=bv.55139894,bs.1,d.eWU
Business Law Today: Taking the 5th: How to pierce the testamonial shield

By the ay, I linked to the actual BLI website to prove that public accommodations are linked to a place, you are using conjecture and guesswork, with no legal citations to back your position up, apparently just to avoid admitting you were wrong.

No you didn't, you linked to a general BOLI website which cites the language of the law, the BOLI website does not supersede the law.

Here is what you link said:

"Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
Civil Rights Division ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS​

Here is how the law then defines a place of public accommodation:

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.400
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]
ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes​

Failure to offer the same services is likely to be found a violation of the statute under the law.

However the whole "services" aspect is a red hearing and not a part of the complaint. The complaint was that the individual went to the storefront location (paragraph numbered "4" in the previous link) and SBM refused to bake a wedding cake for their wedding based on sexual orientation of the couple. The request was made instore, the cakes are made instore. The Klein's refused to make the cake, there was never any discussion of setup.

By the ay, I linked to the actual BLI website to prove that public accommodations are linked to a place, you are using conjecture and guesswork, with no legal citations to back your position up, apparently just to avoid admitting you were wrong.

In reference to the SBM case it's all speculation and guesswork because the case is still under investigation. I would think that is obvious.

However, to your assertion was that Public Accommodation laws do not apply to businesses that provide services at a non-business site. Since the SBM case is still in the investigation state and there is not a final outcome, I provided a legal citation to the New Mexico case showing that general premise is incorrect. The photographer was found to be in violation of the law for refusing off site services that are routinely performed by the business for other clients.

Basically, under Oregon law, all the bakery has to prove is that they don't accept every single person that walks through there doors except for gays and they will win the case.

Incorrect, no business is exempt from Public Accommodation laws simply because they have refused other clients for non-Public Accommodation law reasons. Just because the Kleins at some point in the past may have had a heavy booking schedule and refused a client that came in wanted to order a cake and they turned them down because previous engagements - that in no way exempts them from telling an interracial couple they won't bake a cake because of the race of those being married. Or telling a Jewish couple they won't make a cake for Jews. Or telling lesbians they won't make a wedding cake for them (when wedding cakes are offered services).

Some people just don't seem to understand, Public Accommodation laws don't say that you can't refuse service to someone, they say you can't refuse service for specific reasons. "Sorry I can't take any new wedding cake orders because we are heavily booked - Perfectly fine. "Sorry I can't make a wedding cake for you and your bride because your black." - Violation of the law. "Sorry I can't make a wedding cake for you and your bride because your lesbians." - Violation of the law.

And in all reality, probably "Sorry I'm not accepting that order" with no reason given will likely get a business off. But when you specifically state "I'm not taking the order because you are..." "Black", "Jewish", or "Lesbian" - isn't really a good idea.

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And since we are talking about the "Sweetcakes By Mellisa" (SBM) case, which is still under investigation and as far as I know a ruling has not been issued.

We can anticipate though what the ruling will be based on the law in Oregon. The law that defines a "Place of Public Accommodation" is:

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.400
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]

§ 659A.403
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
​

From a "Place" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, a "place" if you will. The first image below shows an interior shot of SBM front end and the second shows goods being created onsite behind the scenes. Therefore the goods were created onsite in the establishment in question. SBM operated a place of Public Accommodation offering as a functional part of their advertizing the creation of various custom cakes and wedding cakes were specifically cited in their advertizing and their site at the time provided information on wedding planners they had worked with in the past. Therefore under the "place" standard alone SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

From a "Service" Perspective:
SBM operated a storefront establishment, if their business model included delivery and setup of wedding cakes at the customer location that would be a "Service" if you will. It would be very easy to determine if this service was offered in an administrative hearing. First, the Klein's could be brought to the stand to testify, and since this is a civil case and not a criminal case rules against self incrimination wouldn't apply (although perjury rules do since they would be under oath), about the operations of their business. Since we are talking about (at this stage) a court proceeding, their business records can be subpenaed and prior customers contacted to see if SBM provided onsite setup. If the Klein's testify that delivery and setup services are offered or if prior transaction history shows that these services are offered then that establishes what services are offered to different-sex couples. If the administrative hearing goes against them, they can still file an appeal with the Oregon Court system. Therefore under the "service" standard SBM is likely to be found in violation of the Public Accommodation law for refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

***********************************

At the end of the day we cannot definitively say which way the case will go as BOLI has not (to my knowledge) issued a decision on the complaint and if such a decision goes against SBM whether they will appeal to first a formal administrative hearing and ultimately to Oregon's appeals and supreme court systems.

What can be said is that under Oregon law SBM qualifies as a "Place of Public Accommodation" and the complaint is that the establishment violated Oregon Statutes regarding Public Accommodations. In addition there is no "personal religious belief" exception cited in the law to allow their actions.



***********************************






>>>>

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent always applies, even in an "administrative hearing." I know the government doesn't like that, and will try to argue otherwise, but it still applies.

I stand corrected, yes people can invoke the 5th amendment, however unlike a criminal case where no negative inference can be drawn by refusing to answer questions, in a civil proceeding that is not true and a adverse decision can be based in part on such a refusal if the claimant provides sufficient evidence to support their claim.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...q1F_xmYnrvT6anyb2Q&bvm=bv.55139894,bs.1,d.eWU
Business Law Today: Taking the 5th: How to pierce the testamonial shield




No you didn't, you linked to a general BOLI website which cites the language of the law, the BOLI website does not supersede the law.

Here is what you link said:

"Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
Civil Rights Division ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS​

Here is how the law then defines a place of public accommodation:

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.400
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]
ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes​

​

Why not link to the actual law instead of a site that may, or may not, have the most up to date laws? I tried looking it up on the state website, and got redirected to a lot of notices about out of date information.

Failure to offer the same services is likely to be found a violation of the statute under the law.

However the whole "services" aspect is a red hearing and not a part of the complaint. The complaint was that the individual went to the storefront location (paragraph numbered "4" in the previous link) and SBM refused to bake a wedding cake for their wedding based on sexual orientation of the couple. The request was made instore, the cakes are made instore. The Klein's refused to make the cake, there was never any discussion of setup.

By the ay, I linked to the actual BLI website to prove that public accommodations are linked to a place, you are using conjecture and guesswork, with no legal citations to back your position up, apparently just to avoid admitting you were wrong.

In reference to the SBM case it's all speculation and guesswork because the case is still under investigation. I would think that is obvious.

However, to your assertion was that Public Accommodation laws do not apply to businesses that provide services at a non-business site. Since the SBM case is still in the investigation state and there is not a final outcome, I provided a legal citation to the New Mexico case showing that general premise is incorrect. The photographer was found to be in violation of the law for refusing off site services that are routinely performed by the business for other clients.

Yes, we know you provided a link that has zip to do with Oregon to prove how little you know about the law in Oregon, what's your point? Is it that the New Mexico law is deliberately designed to be the most expansive abuse of government power in decades? Is it that government is now making slavery legal in the name of special privileges for others?

Basically, under Oregon law, all the bakery has to prove is that they don't accept every single person that walks through there doors except for gays and they will win the case.

Incorrect, no business is exempt from Public Accommodation laws simply because they have refused other clients for non-Public Accommodation law reasons. Just because the Kleins at some point in the past may have had a heavy booking schedule and refused a client that came in wanted to order a cake and they turned them down because previous engagements - that in no way exempts them from telling an interracial couple they won't bake a cake because of the race of those being married. Or telling a Jewish couple they won't make a cake for Jews. Or telling lesbians they won't make a wedding cake for them (when wedding cakes are offered services).

I didn't say that, did I? I said that, under the law, if they could prove that they do not accept everyone but gays, they could not be held accused of discriminating against them for doing the same thing.

Some people just don't seem to understand, Public Accommodation laws don't say that you can't refuse service to someone, they say you can't refuse service for specific reasons. "Sorry I can't take any new wedding cake orders because we are heavily booked - Perfectly fine. "Sorry I can't make a wedding cake for you and your bride because your black." - Violation of the law. "Sorry I can't make a wedding cake for you and your bride because your lesbians." - Violation of the law.

Not actually true, but I understand your confusion between public accommodation laws and anti discrimination laws, especially since government routinely ties them together to justify the anti discrimination laws. The only legal reason for refusing someone public accommodation is written into other laws. No shirt, no shoes, no service signs are mandated by law, not at the discretion of businesses. If you run a hotel, and have a room, you are required to rent it to whoever can pay.

And in all reality, probably "Sorry I'm not accepting that order" with no reason given will likely get a business off. But when you specifically state "I'm not taking the order because you are..." "Black", "Jewish", or "Lesbian" - isn't really a good idea.

>>>>

That would come under discrimination, not accommodation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent always applies, even in an "administrative hearing." I know the government doesn't like that, and will try to argue otherwise, but it still applies.

I stand corrected, yes people can invoke the 5th amendment, however unlike a criminal case where no negative inference can be drawn by refusing to answer questions, in a civil proceeding that is not true and a adverse decision can be based in part on such a refusal if the claimant provides sufficient evidence to support their claim.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...q1F_xmYnrvT6anyb2Q&bvm=bv.55139894,bs.1,d.eWU
Business Law Today: Taking the 5th: How to pierce the testamonial shield




No you didn't, you linked to a general BOLI website which cites the language of the law, the BOLI website does not supersede the law.

Here is what you link said:

"Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
Civil Rights Division ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS​

Here is how the law then defines a place of public accommodation:

Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.400
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]
ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes​

​

Why not link to the actual law instead of a site that may, or may not, have the most up to date laws? I tried looking it up on the state website, and got redirected to a lot of notices about out of date information.

OK here is the Oregon Legislative site which say the same thing -->> https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors659A.html

" 659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined. (1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.

(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]"

Yes, we know you provided a link that has zip to do with Oregon to prove how little you know about the law in Oregon, what's your point? Is it that the New Mexico law is deliberately designed to be the most expansive abuse of government power in decades? Is it that government is now making slavery legal in the name of special privileges for others?

The Oregon law (as posted above) provides the same type of language. That a business provides a Public Accommodation based on "place" and "services".

I didn't say that, did I? I said that, under the law, if they could prove that they do not accept everyone but gays, they could not be held accused of discriminating against them for doing the same thing.

Not the standard.

Selling all things to heterosexuals but only a subset of things to homosexuals is a violation of the Oregon Public Accommodation law. Under Oregon law if they sell wedding cakes to heterosexuals, they must provide the same goods and services to homosesxuals.

The must provide full and equal goods and services without distinction based on various prescribed factors.

659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]​

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors659A.html

That would come under discrimination, not accommodation.

The claim is filed under Oregon Statutes regarding Public Accommodation which makes it illegal for businesses to discriminate based on certain defined criteria. The action was discrimination (claimed) and the applicable law cited above is the Public Accommodation law.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK here is the Oregon Legislative site which say the same thing -->> https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors659A.html

" 659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined. (1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.

(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]"

The Oregon law (as posted above) provides the same type of language. That a business provides a Public Accommodation based on "place" and "services".

I wonder what a service is? Could it be something like buses and taxis? Could that be why they keep saying it the way they do? Or are you going to keep insisting that service includes forcing everyone on the planet to be slaves to other people if they run a business?

And, no, that is not moving the goal posts, it is a legitimate question.

I didn't say that, did I? I said that, under the law, if they could prove that they do not accept everyone but gays, they could not be held accused of discriminating against them for doing the same thing.

Not the standard.

Selling all things to heterosexuals but only a subset of things to homosexuals is a violation of the Oregon Public Accommodation law. Under Oregon law if they sell wedding cakes to heterosexuals, they must provide the same goods and services to homosesxuals.

The must provide full and equal goods and services without distinction based on various prescribed factors.

659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]​

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors659A.html

If they can prove that they deny services for other reasons, they can win the suit. So far, all you have said to counter that is that they can't do it only because they are gay. If you repeat that again, you still won't be right.

That would come under discrimination, not accommodation.

The claim is filed under Oregon Statutes regarding Public Accommodation which makes it illegal for businesses to discriminate based on certain defined criteria. The action was discrimination (claimed) and the applicable law cited above is the Public Accommodation law.



>>>>

It is filed under anti discrimination laws, of which public accommodation is a subset.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wonder what a service is? Could it be something like buses and taxis? Could that be why they keep saying it the way they do?

It's possible, we'll have to wait for the BOLI ruling to find out. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Since services have to be offered without distinction, discrimination or restriction based on certain criteria under the law. SBM offerred Wedding Cakes, they denied their goods based on an illegal criteria.

Or are you going to keep insisting that service includes forcing everyone on the planet to be slaves to other people if they run a business?

That's the nature of Public Accommodation laws and why, in my personal opinion, they should be repealed. IMHO they violate the principle rights of free association and property rights - now the courts have disagreed with that and have consistently upheld them as a function of government. However the government does many things I don't like. That doesn't prevent a discussion of how in the real world they function.

If they can prove that they deny services for other reasons, they can win the suit. So far, all you have said to counter that is that they can't do it only because they are gay. If you repeat that again, you still won't be right.

That's not true, the measurement in this case is the reason they denied this couple their services, past denial of services for other reasons to other individual or couples are irrelevant to this case.

A review of media reports and interviews shows the Klein's are on record that the reason they refused to bake the wedding cake was because of their faith and they would not provide wedding cakes to the lesbians for a wedding. Such interviews and videos exist of them stating a reason which is in violation of the law, if they tried to claim during an investigation or administrative hearing that there was another reason - then their public statements would come in to impeach them.

Video of them here -->> Sweet Cakes owners respond to firestorm over wedding cake decision | KATU Investigators | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon

Let's say you have:

#1 The Klein's produce John and Kelly, a couple that came in to order a wedding cake but were denied because the Klein's would be out of town during the planned wedding date.

#2 Rachel and her bride came in to order a wedding cake and are denied because they are lesbians planning a religious wedding for themselves.​

#1 is irrelevant to the action under #2. Because they may have denied services in the past for other legitimate reasons does not exempt them from the law in this case for an illegitimate reason.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder what a service is? Could it be something like buses and taxis? Could that be why they keep saying it the way they do?

It's possible, we'll have to wait for the BOLI ruling to find out. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Since services have to be offered without distinction, discrimination or restriction based on certain criteria under the law. SBM offerred Wedding Cakes, they denied their goods based on an illegal criteria.

We don't have to wait for anything. If you need the government tot ell you the difference between right and wrong feel free to wait, I already know.