Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win
They did not refuse to sell their baked goods to homosexuals, they would bake anyone an occasion cake, sell them pastries. The only thing they refused to do was create a cake for a same sex union because it violates their beliefs and to do so violates their moral conscience which by the way is suppose to be guaranteed them fully and protected under the Oregon state constitution not to mention that religious rights are the very first cited in the 1st Amendment. There's a pattern that has unfolded in how activists are overturning state bans on same sex marriage. It's the same technique the left has used every time they can't get something passed at the ballot box. The photographer case is on its way to the Supreme Court. People of faith need protected from intolerant individuals who do not respect a person's right to live their life in a way that does not violate their moral conscience. Maybe the Supremes will act on it or maybe it will take Congress who has already laid the groundwork. We shall see.
And in the 1st sentence you show that they broke the law.
Oregon Revised Statutes
§ 659A.403¹
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.
ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
The law requires "full and equal" not a "subset and partial". The advertised for the sale of wedding cakes, they have a history of selling wedding cakes. They denied selling customers wedding cakes based on the sexual orientation of the customer. That is prima facie evidence that they violated the law right there.
I noticed you previously cherry picked my comments earlier avoiding the newfound knowledge this judge who overturned the same sex marriage ban in Oregon, is also gay and made his ruling personal. This clearly shows this man is an activist with a cause.
k
Typically I my respond to all or only part of a post, if you don't like that feel free to skip over my posts.
The Judge assigned to a case is based on a computer program and random selection. The information that the Judge was gay is not "new found". Do you expect women to recuse themselves from cases involving womens issues? Should a Judge who professes to be a Christian also be requried to recuse themselves?
The Judge in Pennsylvania who just made the same decision was (a) straight, (b) a Republican, and (c) appointed by G.W. Bush.
Gee, given the Romer v. Evan decision and the Windsor v. United States decisions where the SCOTUS points out that it is unconstitutional to enact capricious and invidioius laws target homosexuals that maybe, just maybe - this Judge ruled (as the PA Judge and numberous others have since Windsor) that denying Equal Treatment under the law to same-sex couples might - just might - be unconstitutional and THAT was the basis of his decision. You know, kind of like the same decision that straight, Republican judges reach?
I also noticed you ignored responding to the fact that the Democrat elected state officials deliberately chose to ignore/uphold the state's own constitution. The voters will deal with them.
1. That was a contributing factor as t WHY the Judge ruled as he did, the Executive branch of the State indicated they felt the law was unconstitutional.
2. However you are asking my personal opinion about whether they should defend State law. The answer is "Yes", part of the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Branch (including the Governor and AG) are to defend valid laws of the state. To provide a full defense in a court of law and then let the court answer the question as to whether they are Constitutional or not. If in good conscience they can't defend a law, then at a minimum they should hire 3rd party representation to defend the law in a manner that provides for a full airing of both sides of the issue in court. Similar to what the House Republican's did with BFLAG defending DOMA (Windsor v. United States).
(Allowing unaffiliated parties leave to defend the case isn't really an option as we say with Prop 8 as the suit was against the government and 3rd party actors acting on their own cannot represent the government - they don't have standing. So the Judge in this case was absolutely correct in not allowing and out of State political action committe (NOW, National Organization for Marriage) to step-in to defend the law. It would have setup a SCOTUS dismissal just like with Prop 8 as NOW didn't have standing.)
>>>>
