• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Free Speech for Oregon Bakers

Simply barbaric.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He wasn't a judge, and their right to free speech is unimpaired. They have no right to futher break the law, and they have been warned of this. Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon and elsewhere. Fundies and cultists are the worst.
Click to expand...
Though legal, this is still a restriction on free speech, so I wouldn't say that it has been "unimpaired". This restriction is directly tied to public accommodations law and the presumed effect that such speech will have on the behavior of others. There is no blanket law making it illegal to announce your intent to break the law.
 
Taylor said:
Though legal, this is still a restriction on free speech, so I wouldn't say that it has been "unimpaired". This restriction is directly tied to public accommodations law and the presumed effect that such speech will have on the behavior of others. There is no blanket law making it illegal to announce your intent to break the law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the fine print redifinition of yes to mean no. They were told not to repeat illegal statements. Their huffing and puffing notwithstanding.
 
Jack Hays said:
I actually hope there's some deep flaw in this article and it will be debunked quickly. Otherwise this is too ominous.

Judge to Bakers: No Free Speech for You - Rachel Lu, The Federalist

By decree of the great state of Oregon, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa must pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple whom they “mentally raped” by refusing to bake their wedding cake. This was expected, but the final judgment, handed down last Thursday, came with another twist. Aaron and Melissa Klein have also been given a “cease and desist” order, which effectively decrees they must refrain from stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs.

Land of the What-Was-That?

Let’s be clear on why this is so sinister. There are times when speech rights conflict with other legitimate social goods. The public’s right to know can conflict with individual privacy rights. Sometimes threats to public safety warrant keeping secrets. There can be interesting debates about intellectual property rights. These cases can get tricky, and we should all understand that speech rights necessarily do have certain pragmatic limits.

None of those concerns apply here. The Kleins did not threaten public safety. They violated no one’s privacy or property rights. Rather, the Oregon labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, wanted to silence them because the content of their speech. Presumably he was angry that the Kleins’ defiant stance had earned them a potentially profitable reputation as heroes for religious freedom. They were meant to be humiliated and cowed; instead there was a real chance they would land on their feet. So they had to be gagged to prevent that from happening.

If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a case like this, it is meaningless. . . .
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with free speech by any stretch.

That's what happens when you don't let black people sit at the counter.
 
Jack Hays said:
Hmmm. Are you saying that if I announce that I favor bank robbery but take no action to actually rob banks I have committed a crime?
Click to expand...

If you have robbed banks before, most definitely.
Make threats on the Presidents life and you will see what happens.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Thank you for the fine print redifinition of yes to mean no. They were told not to repeat illegal statements. Their huffing and puffing notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the law, one should always take care in understanding the fine print.
 
MaggieD said:
Under Oregon's public accommodation laws, they cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. They also can't say they won't bake a cake for a mixed race marriage or any one of a number of protected classes of people according to Oregon law. This is nothing new.

Since the cease and desist order is not quoted, I have no comment other than Oregon apparently made it clear they can't post a sign about it either.
Click to expand...

Yes, posting a sign saying you won't serve gay people is the same as telling gay people to their face that you won't serve them. The medium makes no difference. Either way, it's discrimination.
 
sangha said:
Yes, posting a sign saying you won't serve gay people is the same as telling gay people to their face that you won't serve them. The medium makes no difference. Either way, it's discrimination.
Click to expand...

It's also informative and can help the community make informed decisions.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He wasn't a judge, and their right to free speech is unimpaired. They have no right to futher break the law, and they have been warned of this. Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon and elsewhere. Fundies and cultists are the worst.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.
 
brothern said:
They're called inchoate offenses: Conspiracy, attempt, incitement and solicitation.
Attempted murder. Conspiracy to distribute. Online solicitation of a minor. Etc.

Here's a law in Oregon that describes inchoate offenses.
ORS 161.485 - Multiple convictions barred in inchoate crimes - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
Click to expand...

Unless Oregon law is vastly different from many other states in the U.S., I dare say from the other 49 states, then merely stating "I favor bank robbery" is not an actual crime. Now, as this concept relates to this thread, the issue is the substance and breadth of the order alleged to preclude the bakers from announcing their beliefs.

Furthermore, this is a case involving violation of a public accommodation law, which is a civil matter, but the information you provided involves the convictions for crimes, which is a criminal matter. The two, civil and criminal subject matter, are not the same. The information you provided was edifying but ultimately pointless.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He wasn't a judge, and their right to free speech is unimpaired. They have no right to futher break the law, and they have been warned of this. Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon and elsewhere. Fundies and cultists are the worst.
Click to expand...

Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon
Click to expand...

Cite for me the statute or perhaps Oregon judicial opinion in which it is stated, "Announcing your intent to break the law in future" is unlawful.
 
Henrin said:
The effect of them not getting served is that they don't get the service in question and must find someone else to trade with. The effect of being told someone won't serve you is...ummm...
Click to expand...

The "effect" is that if they are breaking the law by doing that they will be made responsible. "Separate but equal" is no longer a legal excuse for discrimination.
 
NotreDame said:
Cite for me the statute or perhaps Oregon judicial opinion in which it is stated, "Announcing your intent to break the law in future" is unlawful.
Click to expand...


Oregon Revised Statute 659A.409 -->> https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors659a.html


It is against the law for a business qualifying as a public accommodation to "published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect" that it plans to discriminate in violation of Oregon's Public Accommodation law.


>>>>
 
iguanaman said:
The "effect" is that if they are breaking the law by doing that they will be made responsible. "Separate but equal" is no longer a legal excuse for discrimination.
Click to expand...

The legal doctrine of separate but equal is of no standing to my argument. The effect of not providing service is always that the service is not provided. While the courts might have said that the equal protection clause applied to private enterprise in reality the only party that is bound by it is the state.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Oregon Revised Statute 659A.409 -->> https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors659a.html


It is against the law for a business qualifying as a public accommodation to "published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect" that it plans to discriminate in violation of Oregon's Public Accommodation law.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Correct! But, the post I was responding too made a much more general statement and I am incredulous they will locate a statute supporting their generalized assertion. Indeed your statement is much less generalized as your reply correctly attaches the forbidden speech directly to the operation of a public accommodation.

Or maybe I simply did not read the post within the context and mistakenly construed the statement as a general remark.
 
Henrin said:
The legal doctrine of separate but equal is of no standing to my argument. The effect of not providing service is always that the service is not provided. While the courts might have said that the equal protection clause applied to private enterprise in reality the only party that is bound by it is the state.
Click to expand...

The idea that blacks could go elsewhere to be served is the same argument you gave. The fact that there are other places that may serve someone is not a excuse for discrimination.
 
iguanaman said:
The idea that blacks could go elsewhere to be served is the same argument you gave. The fact that there are other places that may serve someone is not a excuse for discrimination.
Click to expand...

If there is or isn't someone else to trade with is again not important to my argument. It is only important that both parties respect the consent of the other party in the transaction. Just because you may need something does not give you a right to slaves.
 
Taylor said:
Yes, advertising that you don't serve gay people has the same effect as not serving them.
Click to expand...

As a gay man I would take my money elsewhere it's the shop owners decision and loss Overall gay couples have more disposable income than straight couples due to the fact most do not have a kids to support

It's the shop owners loss not mine

I am sure there are many more bakeries that would take my $$ with a smile on there face irregardless of who I choose to hang with
 
yankintx said:
As a gay man I would take my money elsewhere it's the shop owners decision and loss Overall gay couples have more disposable income than straight couples due to the fact most do not have a kids to support

It's the shop owners loss not mine

I am sure there are many more bakeries that would take my $$ with a smile on there face irregardless of who I choose to hang with
Click to expand...

excellent point !
 
ernst barkmann said:
i always ask the question- how can the government make a law which violates a right?
Click to expand...


Do you think that all law should be sharia compliant not to violate the rights of Muslims?

What is your opinion of United States v. Brittian when Christians government officials tried to use religion as a basis for racial discrimination regarding civil marriages of interracial couples?


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Do you think that all law should be sharia compliant not to violate the rights of Muslims?

What is your opinion of United States v. Brittian when Christians government officials tried to use religion as a basis for racial discrimination regarding civil marriages of interracial couples?


>>>>
Click to expand...

whether someone is muslim or not they have natural rights.

marriage is not a natural right, a person has the natural right to be with the person of their choice.

marriage is a privilege, and if the state provides the privilege/civil right/legal to it....... if must provide to the others. no matter of the sex of either one

article 4 section 2 clause 1

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"


AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges/[civil rights legal rights] or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property[natural rights], without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom