NationalTitles15 said:

And that law at the state level conflicts with the federal constitution which is also binding on states. State law winning over federal law is the longer shot. What made desegregation of businesses (public establishments) lawful was the civil rights act which was enacted under the power given congress by the 14th Amendment. Without that clearly enumerated power it fails miserably, whatever its merit.

Click to expand...

Federal law doesn't include sexual orientation in its public accommodation protections. It also seems not to include bakeries and photographers as places of public accommodation.

Tide1986 said:

When was the Oregon constitution amended to define all businesses (regardless of legal construct) as public accomodations and therefore not subject to the protections of Article I, Section 3, stating that no law in any case whatsoever can violate the right of conscience?

Click to expand...

here is the oregon law defining public accommodation.

link

any further discussion you wish to have on this will not include me as you are just arguing in circles

92tide said:

here is the oregon law defining public accommodation.

link

any further discussion you wish to have on this will not include me as you are just arguing in circles

Click to expand...

I am aware that there is a legislative statute but no constitutional provision.

for any interested, federal code on public accommodation

link

TIDE-HSV said:

Just a word about gag orders in general. They have been in general use for a long, long time. Let's set aside their use in courts, mostly federal, when national security is involved. In civil cases, almost the sole reason a judge uses them is to avoid a case being prejudiced by advance PR of one side, or both, in an attempt to "go public" and influence public thinking, and, in jury cases, the jury pool.

Such orders have long been recognized as an exemption to the 1st amendment - a long string of cases in appellate courts uphold this. Appellate courts are very reluctant to substitute their judgment for the trial judge. Few judges will stand for a publicity blitz on a case before them. Eventually, the gag will come out.

The next point to remember is that, in the end, the US functions under "judicial supremacy." IOW, the Constitution means exactly what the courts say that it means, and that becomes the "law of the land." Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. Only one thing matters, and that's what the courts say. I would be totally astounded if the courts find that this judge has overstepped his bounds...

Click to expand...

it seems like there is no actual "gag order" but that the labor commissioner is enforcing this law

i think what is happening is what i suggested earlier, this is being twisted and blown way out of proportion by folks wanting to leverage "our religious liberty is under attack" outrage. of course, that is just my opinion

Tide1986 said:

Federal law doesn't include sexual orientation in its public accommodation protections. It also seems not to include bakeries and photographers as places of public accommodation.

Click to expand...

From federal law:

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Sexual orientation not included.

And from federal law:

"Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment."

Bakeries and photographers not covered under the definition of public accommodation.

None of us knows (as I said earlier) what the court will rule. What should be obvious is that there are conflicting interests and competing rights. Discussing where we draw those lines is important IMHO. No one's opinion - not mine but not yours either - has been upheld by SCOTUS on this matter. I wish we could work it out together but alas, but need an oligarchy to rule us.

The cease and desist order is interesting since the bakers own no place of accommodation and are not acting on behalf of any specific place of accommodation -- seems like a specious assertion on the state's part. Nevertheless, I assume there's not much more the state can do to the bakers except increase the fine.

NationalTitles15 said:

None of us knows (as I said earlier) what the court will rule. What should be obvious is that there are conflicting interests and competing rights. Discussing where we draw those lines is important IMHO. No one's opinion - not mine but not yours either - has been upheld by SCOTUS on this matter. I wish we could work it out together but alas, but need an oligarchy to rule us.

Click to expand...

First and foremost, Oregon needs to say what the law is.

Earl, I disagree with the premise that we operate under "judicial supremacy" in the true sense that implies. Congress has remedies it may use to reign in a rogue court. It has used some of those powers before. It may lack the will or ability to use them but the powers remain nonetheless. I do get judicial review and interpretation and the like, but "supremacy"? No. The court can be trumped in several important ways.

The bakery is a public accommodation under Oregon law. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400

The Oregon Equality Act has been in effect since 2007.

659A.400¹
Place of public accommodation defined

(1)A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:
(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Oops I see hat 92Tide has beaten to this. Once again I am foolishly redundant.

We have a lot of what we used to call jail house or barracks lawyers on here.

What if someone goes into a black owned bakery and demands a cake decorated with a confederate flag? What if someone wants offensive racial slurs put on one and the baker finds it offensive?

mikes12 said:

What if someone goes into a black owned bakery and demands a cake decorated with a confederate flag? What if someone wants offensive racial slurs put on one and the baker finds it offensive?

Click to expand...

In this case, I'm sure any refusal would fall under exercising one's right of conscience because God knows man isn't good about being consistent when it comes to laws. Whatever feels good is the new standard.

Tennessee doesn't have a law like Oregon's.. US Supreme Court anyone?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/07/02/3676591/no-gay-hardware/

It’s Perfectly Legal For This Tennessee Hardware Store To Refuse Gay Customers

Tennessee has no statewide law protecting LGBT people from discrimination in public accommodations like hardware stores. In fact, Tennessee was the first state in the nation where state lawmakers passed a law forbidding municipalities from extending such protections. (Arkansas followed suit earlier this year.) No protections exist at the federal level either.

Here's my thing and where I just smh.....


I would hope anyone could at least understand from the marriage standpoint WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT....."Hey, I can see why he holds such and such a view on marriage and doesn't want to blah blah blah." (Remember - I'm the one whose fundamentalist mother-in-law had the gay caterer take care of her fundamentalist parents 60th wedding anniversary at the Southern Baptist church in Dump Truck County, MS and NOT ONE WORD was said about it). They chose him and his gay brother because they were childhood friends and did an outstanding job.

But I would at least hope someone would say, "Well, I can see why someone wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding based on their view of matrimony as a sacrament or whatever."


But.......beyond that what is there that one can even with minimal reason object to? I'm not gonna sell a gay guy stuff from my hardware store because he's gay? Say WHAT? I mean, gee, can we get any more absurd?

Maybe I ought to look at gay legal marriage like George Carlin did gays in the military - MORE WOMEN FOR ME!!!!!

NationalTitles15 said:

This isn't a war (cultural "war" notwithstanding), so under most circumstances no, they can't. And since the Oregon law this ruling is based on is unconstitutional then the gag order is illegal as well and in general flies in the face of the constitution. Free speech without consequence from government means exactly that, actually. You'd have an argument if the free market were forcing this on them; but it is the very government the constitution addresses when limiting powers as incorporated against the states. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus but do you expect a peacetime government to do that? Ludicrous. Bottom line: The Constitution protects free exercise of religion from state interference. Sexual orientation is not included in the 14th Amendment, which does incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states (along with other rights). There is a conflict and the states will lose to the feds every time. Congress has also carved no niche for sexual orientation and even if they did without a new Amendment it probably would not fly - and "probably" only because I don't expect the Constitution to always be followed even if it should.

Click to expand...

Threats and discrimination can be freely said but in most situations consequences are to follow. That's my point.

81usaf92 said:

Threats and discrimination can be freely said but in most situations consequences are to follow. That's my point.

Click to expand...

Well, a threat of violence is called assault and is against the law. If you are referring to a threat of discrimination, that is not exactly what is happening here. My understanding, without seeing the order, is that they are ordered to basically talk to no one publicly about their beliefs and intents as the judge claims it is "advertising".

Now, in my mind "Congress shall make no law..." means exactly that. Even when that conflicts with another constitutional provision in some way large or small that has to be sorted out. But there is a clear and distinct limit on Congress' power to mete out consequences. Since the 14th Amendment applies to same restrictions to the states they must also refrain in a similar manner from infringing on religious freedom (shall make NO law) and refrain from punishing anyone for exercising that freedom (otherwise it's not freedom, right?!). Your neighbor may decide he won't do business with you and you are not free from that consequence. But your neighbor does not have the power of government nor the restrictions of government.

NationalTitles15 said:

Well, a threat of violence is called assault and is against the law. If you are referring to a threat of discrimination, that is not exactly what is happening here. My understanding, without seeing the order, is that they are ordered to basically talk to no one publicly about their beliefs and intents as the judge claims it is "advertising".

Now, in my mind "Congress shall make no law..." means exactly that. Even when that conflicts with another constitutional provision in some way large or small that has to be sorted out. But there is a clear and distinct limit on Congress' power to mete out consequences. Since the 14th Amendment applies to same restrictions to the states they must also refrain in a similar manner from infringing on religious freedom (shall make NO law) and refrain from punishing anyone for exercising that freedom (otherwise it's not freedom, right?!). Your neighbor may decide he won't do business with you and you are not free from that consequence. But your neighbor does not have the power of government nor the restrictions of government.

Click to expand...

That story has been around for quiet awhile and is only now gaining real traction. To be honest it's really hard to distinguish what is truth and what is butt hurt propaganda that is posted. From what dateline 20/20 said is that she refused and they sued, and after they pay then that's the end of it. I highly doubt the state of Oregon is preventing them from sharing their beliefs, if they did this would have a suit against the state of Oregon winding up in federal court. I do however believe that the state of Oregon is preventing discrimination though. Morally I don't agree with same sex marriage but I'm not stupid enough to discriminate if I am providing a service because people sue for anything and everything.

81usaf92 said:

That story has been around for quiet awhile and is only now gaining real traction. To be honest it's really hard to distinguish what is truth and what is butt hurt propaganda that is posted. From what dateline 20/20 said is that she refused and they sued, and after they pay then that's the end of it. I highly doubt the state of Oregon is preventing them from sharing their beliefs, if they did this would have a suit against the state of Oregon winding up in federal court. I do however believe that the state of Oregon is preventing discrimination though. Morally I don't agree with same sex marriage but I'm not stupid enough to discriminate if I am providing a service because people sue for anything and everything.

Click to expand...

People discriminate every day. I discriminate every day. YOU discriminate every day. EVERYONE discriminates every day. Look up the word. Read the meaning. Learn it. We all do it to some degree multiple times a day. Discrimination itself is not always morally wrong and certainly even less often legally wrong, wisdom of said action notwithstanding. This will eventually move to federal court. I would think the process has to play out at the state level first. The story has been out and debated at length since just after it happened and will get more attention later as this is going to be a HUGE test of law and liberty vs law and equality/non-discrimination under law. There is no constitutional protection for sexual orientation, however distasteful that may seem. There is a constitutional provision regarding free EXERCISE of religion and natural law underpinnings in regards to freedom of conscience, freedom of association (including the right to not associate), and freedom of expression/speech (not just in regards to the gag order - let's not get confused - placing a message or creating/placing an image is also speech and attending a ceremony/wedding may be a form of expression as in approval). All of that constitution and common law vs the legislature of a small state. The courts will no doubt defer to the state if at all possible. I'm not sure that is possible given the differential in constitutional backing for the respective sides of this particular issue.

On a side note I once argued with an ardent pro-abortion activist regarding a nurse/doctor's right of conscience. She was adamant that a nurse of doctor in effect gave up their right of conscience when they entered the field and that they should just- and I quote - "do their job". (side note - under extenuating and emergent emergent here means it can not wait - circumstances any doctor or nurse should do all to save the child and/or mother up to and including performing or otherwise participating in a medically necessary abortion to save the mother's life and preserve her health). After revisiting the infamous "I was just taking orders" defense in regards to legality as well as morality, I asked simply if she would want someone tortured and distracted by that mental anguish to perform surgery on her. I went into detail about the mental torture such actions would cause someone who chose to do that against their own conscience and how that could be a potentially deadly (for her) distraction (we are all human, after all). Then if these folks were forced to leave the profession who will take their place? There is already a shortage of both. Who will enter now? Certainly no one with a conscience against it. And what conscience will those left have? Now who will support these people if they can't work or pay back their student loans or be productive members of society or if no one else will hire them because they are branded? Will you let them starve for their belief? Their children also? Place them on the public dole at YOUR expense? It gets to be a self-defeating thing even if you live through the procedure. Maybe I overwhelmed her with pure BS, or maybe she understood my legitimate points. Whatever the case she changed her mind and we became good friends.

Now a cake is a bit different, but it's food. I have learned you never tick off the people making the food you put inside your body. There is little limit on ways they can slyly get you back. A photographer can show up with nonfunctional equipment and then you have no pictures. A property owner can leave a heaping pile of "fertilizer" for the lawn. A minister can include anti-gay bible verses in the vows or at some other point.

If someone doesn't want to do something for me for something so important to me then I don't want them to do it. I want someone who is happy to be there doing it.

It's easy to want to ruin someone when you feel disrespected. Some might call that natural. Doesn't make it right or desirable at any time, much less in a free society. I believe we have to rise above those emotions, agree to disagree, and move on. I don't want to be the cause of someone's ruin just because they don't want to participate in an action that violates their conscience.