• 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

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. . . .

The 1st Amendment does not give people the right to discriminate. The right just hates this fact and loves to whine about what they believe is religious persecution. In fact, they are mad because the courts upheld the law and denied them the right to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate.
 
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.

You are quite incorrect. The right uses that tactic to argue their case but they always lose. Private enterprise IS ABSOLUTELY GOVERNED BY THE LAW.
 
Back
Top Bottom