decision is in, Gay marriage now legal

[selmaborntidefan]

Btw, I haven't followed every nuance on the thread here because: a) I'm a moron and b) I know enough to know that the moment legal mumbo jumbo gets discussed that I'm out of my league (theology anyone?).

But........I know full well I've heard before about judges giving gag orders in all kinds of cases. It seems to be on the news every other day. This ain't some freedom of speech issue. Even as little as I know about legalities I understand that much.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Btw, I haven't followed every nuance on the thread here because: a) I'm a moron and b) I know enough to know that the moment legal mumbo jumbo gets discussed that I'm out of my league (theology anyone?).

But........I know full well I've heard before about judges giving gag orders in all kinds of cases. It seems to be on the news every other day. This ain't some freedom of speech issue. Even as little as I know about legalities I understand that much.

Differing reports on the gag order and whether it is specifically regarding details of the case or involves "advertising" (by speaking publicly about their beliefs) that they will "discriminate". That is apart from other potential free expression issues that may be at issue in the case. I'm also not well versed in the lawful limitations of gag orders.

 

[seebell]

Btw, I haven't followed every nuance on the thread here because: a) I'm a moron and b) I know enough to know that the moment legal mumbo jumbo gets discussed that I'm out of my league (theology anyone?).

But........I know full well I've heard before about judges giving gag orders in all kinds of cases. It seems to be on the news every other day. This ain't some freedom of speech issue. Even as little as I know about legalities I understand that much.

I vote for A. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA:biggrin:

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I vote for A. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA:biggrin:

Ah go find yourself another midget tranny....




But you're right, too.

 

[Gr8hope]

This author gets it, do you?

United We Stood, Divided We'll Fall

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/united_we_stood_divided_well_fall.html

 

[Bama Reb]

"The laws of men are oftentimes confusing, but never absolute. What was illegal yesterday might be legal today, illegal again next week and legal again next year. But what's wrong on the eyes of the lord is wrong every day.''

 

[CullmanTide]

This author gets it, do you?

United We Stood, Divided We'll Fall

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/united_we_stood_divided_well_fall.html

Thank you for posting that.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

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).

I think I shared this here before but back in 1996 there was a Catholic doctor at Little Rock. A single woman (adult, late 20s) came in for birth control pills. He told her - VERY politely - that his convictions prevented him from personally giving her BCPs BUT he would have another doctor put the order in immediately. It literally cost her no time at all. He went and had the doc put it in and boom.

Several months later I'm in her leadership class with some other ** guys and she brings this up as a part of offsetting values. Although she had been angrier about it at the time (my ex worked in the office with her so I heard about it), she was actually very professional about it. Then this blowhard in the front of the class (you know the type) with an anti-religion chip on his shoulder (sort of) popped off that, "Well where does he get off playing God like that?"

At which point I intoned, "And yet, it's okay for YOU or YOUR WIFE to decide whether or not life is created....notice anyone playing God here..."

It should be noted at no time did the doctor (even according to the girl) pass any judgment upon her or lecture her on premarital sex or anything. He just stated WHY he wasn't going to do X but that it would NOT inconvenience her. She was upset at the time (and I understand that because you're feeling judged - but in light of the fact that medical treatment depends upon you telling the TRUTH even about things you're ashamed of, you better do it) but calmer months later.

His own anti-Christian bias had come out earlier in the class so when he opted to use "play God" rhetoric, well two can play that game (since that's all it is).

Btw that reminds me of something else that's truly hilarious (to me anyway). When I was in my final months in the ** awaiting medical decision they moved me to the office to copy medical records. Many times I was copying the records of female soldiers. I always found it funny (and I had not known this) that on a pap smear record there is a place where the woman has to answer both the number of partners in the last year AND the number lifetime. It was funny to watch those numbers go DOWN for lifetime the later you got in their lives (e.g. 19-year old girl lists 8 partners in a year and 13 lifetime and then when she's 26 you have 1 in a year and 4 in a lifetime). I mean that's IMPOSSIBLE!!!

but still funny......

 

[NationalTitles18]

One thing is certain regarding bias: Many people are blinded to their own bias. I hear proclamations that this or that news source or source of information on a subject are "unbiased" compared to another and almost - and sometimes literally do - laugh.
Being familiar with research you have some understanding of selection bias, confirmation bias, and the like. Even rigorous scientific researchers are vulnerable to their own biases. That's what makes the method employed in systematically exposing and attempting to remove those biases so important.
The nature of our biases is what makes that so difficult, more so when we are blind to the ones we hold. For instance: A number of conservatives held the view the GWB should simply not enforce certain laws and thought that was right, until Obama actually did just that. And the libs supporting him now will cringe and cry when a conservative does it. But anyone doing it undermines the rule of law. The same can be said about Roy Moore's past and present actions.
In your example, when each side is respectful of the other things generally go smoothly. When that respect breaks down and bias blindness rises to the surface bad things can happen to good people and someone has to point out the hypocrisy of those who are blind to it. Good for you. It seems the provider with the young lady understood her bias and her duty.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Regarding having "free speech" but not " freedom from consequences (which come from the government)":

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/asia/singapore-teen-blogger-amos-yee-freed/index.html

"A psychiatrist at the Institute of Mental Health said Yee does not realize that "freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence" and recommended counseling on responsible use of the Internet, Dodwell's statement said. The psychiatrist also recommended that Yee continue his formal education and attend family counseling."

This 16yo kids was in prison for 53 days because he made speech someone in government didn't like. He also was forced to undergo psychiatric examinations. The is exactly what "free speech is not freedom from consequence" looks like.

Free speech looks like this: The kid continues posting on his blog while living at home and and unless he directly and credibly threatens or calls for a riot can say what he darn well pleases without government interference or consequence.

One of the above scenarios is freedom. The other is tyranny disguised as freedom. One is true. The other is a falsehood. One empowers the individual and protects from an abusive government. The other empowers government and protects government. One is free speech. The other is anything but.

 

[81usaf92]

This makes more sense of what most likely happened.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/cake_wars_oregon_did_not_gag_an_anti_gay_bakery.html

I’ll start with Labor Commission Brad Avakian’s order, which, tellingly, appears nowhere in the Daily Signal’s article. Avakian found Sweet Cakes by Melissa guilty of discriminating against a lesbian couple, in violation of Oregon law. (The bakers had flatly refused to bake a cake for the couple’s commitment ceremony, citing their religious opposition to homosexuality.) Avakian ordered Sweet Cakes to pay $135,000 in damages. He also noted that the bakers had granted an interview with hate-group leader Tony Perkins, which aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network. During the interview, Melissa Klein (of Sweet Cakes) stated: “We don’t do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.” The broadcast also displayed a note taped to Sweet Cakes’ door, which directed readers to the store’s Facebook page and stated, in part: “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”


These statements, Avakian held, clearly telegraph Klein’s intention to continue to refuse service to gay couples. That presents a new legal wrinkle, since under Oregon law, businesses may not “publish, circulate, issue or display” any “communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind” that suggests they will turn someone away because of their identity. It’s this law that prevents a hotel from declaring on its website “no interracial couples.” An individual hotelier, of course, retains his private First Amendment right to preach about God’s intent to separate the races—as the trial judge in Loving v. Virginiadid. But when he’s speaking publicly in his official capacity as a hotelier, he may not declare that his business will refuse service to the public based on their identity.

Noting that the Kleins had run afoul of Oregon law by asserting their intention to keep discriminating against gay couples, Avakian proposed a simple solution: Stop doing that. Rather than fine the Kleins further, Avakian wrote that the couple must “cease and desist” stating that Sweet Cakes would continue to turn away gay couples. As individuals, the Kleins may declare that Oregon’s anti-discrimination law should not protect gay couples. But when speaking publicly about the future of their own business, they must not opine that they will maintain a policy of anti-gay discrimination.

now this could be more garbage but it seems to make more sense than most articles on it.

 

[Tidewater]

Regarding having "free speech" but not " freedom from consequences (which come from the government)":

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/asia/singapore-teen-blogger-amos-yee-freed/index.html

"A psychiatrist at the Institute of Mental Health said Yee does not realize that "freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence" and recommended counseling on responsible use of the Internet, Dodwell's statement said. The psychiatrist also recommended that Yee continue his formal education and attend family counseling."

This 16yo kids was in prison for 53 days because he made speech someone in government didn't like. He also was forced to undergo psychiatric examinations. The is exactly what "free speech is not freedom from consequence" looks like.

Free speech looks like this: The kid continues posting on his blog while living at home and and unless he directly and credibly threatens or calls for a riot can say what he darn well pleases without government interference or consequence.

One of the above scenarios is freedom. The other is tyranny disguised as freedom. One is true. The other is a falsehood. One empowers the individual and protects from an abusive government. The other empowers government and protects government. One is free speech. The other is anything but.

Singapore does not play around. The US constitution does not apply there. I have never been there, but read that you can go to jail for throwing chewing gum on the sidewalk. An American kid was caned for vandalism. Just this year, two Germans, Andreas Von Knorre and Elton Hinz, were each sentenced on 5 March 2015 to nine months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for breaking into a train depot in November 2014 and vandalising a train cabin by spraypainting it.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Singapore does not play around. The US constitution does not apply there. I have never been there, but read that you can go to jail for throwing chewing gum on the sidewalk. An American kid was caned for vandalism. Just this year, two Germans, Andreas Von Knorre and Elton Hinz, were each sentenced on 5 March 2015 to nine months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for breaking into a train depot in November 2014 and vandalising a train cabin by spraypainting it.

Exactly my point.

 

[81usaf92]

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.

Regarding having "free speech" but not " freedom from consequences (which come from the government)":

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/asia/singapore-teen-blogger-amos-yee-freed/index.html

"A psychiatrist at the Institute of Mental Health said Yee does not realize that "freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence" and recommended counseling on responsible use of the Internet, Dodwell's statement said. The psychiatrist also recommended that Yee continue his formal education and attend family counseling."

This 16yo kids was in prison for 53 days because he made speech someone in government didn't like. He also was forced to undergo psychiatric examinations. The is exactly what "free speech is not freedom from consequence" looks like.

Free speech looks like this: The kid continues posting on his blog while living at home and and unless he directly and credibly threatens or calls for a riot can say what he darn well pleases without government interference or consequence.

One of the above scenarios is freedom. The other is tyranny disguised as freedom. One is true. The other is a falsehood. One empowers the individual and protects from an abusive government. The other empowers government and protects government. One is free speech. The other is anything but.

Donald Sterling made some racial comments to his mistress on a private phone call that went public. He lost the Clippers and was banned from the NBA for it. Sterling was a lawyer by trade and had successfully beat the NBA in court before. So if there wasnt freedom of speech without consequences then why did he drop the suit against the NBA.

Another example is Adam Smith, the guy who went out of his way to belittle the Chickfila cashier because Chickfila's owner told the world that he is against gay marriage. That guy had 200,000 dollar salary and stock options at the company he worked with. He was fired the next day with his salary and his stock options terminated. He has since been put on the blacklist for potential employees and is currently unemployed. You would think he would have a leg to stand on in court if it was freedom of speech without consequence.

This is what I mean without consequence. The government will give you the right to say whatever you like, but they wont defend you if your community,employer, or any institution finds your comments offensive or out of line.

Also this whole thing, about the Oregon Bakery, seems to be Ultra Conservative and Anti Gay movement propaganda. This article has the Oregon BOL publicaly give an explaination of the supposed gag order.

Charlie Burr, Communication Director for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, debunked the "gag order" talking point in an email to Media Matters:

Our Final Order against Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not contain a gag order (as reported by Fox's Todd Starnes, National Review, Daily Caller and others). It does contain damages for the same-sex couple denied service based on sexual orientation and also includes a cease and desist order directing the business to refrain from discriminating against future customers. That does not mean that the owners are prohibited from talking about the case or their opposition to Oregon anti-discrimination laws.
​

This cease and desist order is based on enforcement of Oregon's non-discrimination law, which prohibits advertising that services of a public accommodation will be denied on the basis of sexual orientation. It's the same language that makes it illegal for a business to place a "whites only" sign in their window. As Slate's Mark Joseph Stern explained, this is not the same as a gag order (emphasis added):

There is nothing in Avakian's order that bars the Kleins from talking about the ruling. They can rail against it, march against its injustice, and pen Facebook screeds complaining about anti-discrimination law. What they cannot do is proclaim (publicly!) that their business will not serve gay couples.​

The only two things I can see wrong with this is that the order came from Avakian who is a LGBT supporter and how they justify the amount of money won by the lesbian couple. Other that it seems pretty legit.

here is the whole article
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/06/right-wing-media-invents-gag-order-for-anti-gay/204267

​

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Donald Sterling made some racial comments to his mistress on a private phone call that went public. He lost the Clippers and was banned from the NBA for it. Sterling was a lawyer by trade and had successfully beat the NBA in court before. So if there wasnt freedom of speech without consequences then why did he drop the suit against the NBA.

Another example is Adam Smith, the guy who went out of his way to belittle the Chickfila cashier because Chickfila's owner told the world that he is against gay marriage. That guy had 200,000 dollar salary and stock options at the company he worked with. He was fired the next day with his salary and his stock options terminated. He has since been put on the blacklist for potential employees and is currently unemployed. You would think he would have a leg to stand on in court if it was freedom of speech without consequence.

This is what I mean without consequence. The government will give you the right to say whatever you like, but they wont defend you if your community,employer, or any institution finds your comments offensive or out of line.

Also this whole thing, about the Oregon Bakery, seems to be Ultra Conservative and Anti Gay movement propaganda. This article has the Oregon BOL publicaly give an explaination of the supposed gag order.

The only two things I can see wrong with this is that the order came from Avakian who is a LGBT supporter and how they justify the amount of money won by the lesbian couple. Other that it seems pretty legit.

here is the whole article
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/06/right-wing-media-invents-gag-order-for-anti-gay/204267

​

Thanks. Obviously, my remarks about gag orders above should be disregarded in relation to this particular case...

 

[NationalTitles18]

Donald Sterling made some racial comments to his mistress on a private phone call that went public. He lost the Clippers and was banned from the NBA for it. Sterling was a lawyer by trade and had successfully beat the NBA in court before. So if there wasnt freedom of speech without consequences then why did he drop the suit against the NBA.

Another example is Adam Smith, the guy who went out of his way to belittle the Chickfila cashier because Chickfila's owner told the world that he is against gay marriage. That guy had 200,000 dollar salary and stock options at the company he worked with. He was fired the next day with his salary and his stock options terminated. He has since been put on the blacklist for potential employees and is currently unemployed. You would think he would have a leg to stand on in court if it was freedom of speech without consequence.

This is what I mean without consequence. The government will give you the right to say whatever you like, but they wont defend you if your community,employer, or any institution finds your comments offensive or out of line.

Also this whole thing, about the Oregon Bakery, seems to be Ultra Conservative and Anti Gay movement propaganda. This article has the Oregon BOL publicaly give an explaination of the supposed gag order.

The only two things I can see wrong with this is that the order came from Avakian who is a LGBT supporter and how they justify the amount of money won by the lesbian couple. Other that it seems pretty legit.

here is the whole article
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/06/right-wing-media-invents-gag-order-for-anti-gay/204267

​

And my point was that "consequences" in this case come from the government, not private individuals and groups (in regards to the ruling and cease and desist in telling people what they won't do, anyway). Those folks you mention had no consequence whatsoever from government. The cases are not remotely similar.

For sure the ultra left and the ultra right are BOTH hyping this case. I get that. They are BOTH bending facts to fit their narrative. There is anti gay and anti christian propaganda surrounding the whole issue.

One thing is for sure: Ig this case does not make it to SCOTUS, another will. Then we will see if the Constitution is worth the paper it is written on.

(Side note: I support gay marriage as a right. I support generally nondiscrimination even for sexual orientation in most instances. But in cases of someone making what can be understood as an expression or association with/for an idea or event that violates their conscience I believe we should defer to the individual's conscience, as none of us has the right to make a slave of another's conscience. Leave gays alone to do as they wish. Leave christians and other alone to do as they wish. It's really about mutual and not one sided respect)

 

[81usaf92]

And my point was that "consequences" in this case come from the government, not private individuals and groups (in regards to the ruling and cease and desist in telling people what they won't do, anyway). Those folks you mention had no consequence whatsoever from government. The cases are not remotely similar.

For sure the ultra left and the ultra right are BOTH hyping this case. I get that. They are BOTH bending facts to fit their narrative. There is anti gay and anti christian propaganda surrounding the whole issue.

One thing is for sure: Ig this case does not make it to SCOTUS, another will. Then we will see if the Constitution is worth the paper it is written on.

(Side note: I support gay marriage as a right. I support generally nondiscrimination even for sexual orientation in most instances. But in cases of someone making what can be understood as an expression or association with/for an idea or event that violates their conscience I believe we should defer to the individual's conscience, as none of us has the right to make a slave of another's conscience. Leave gays alone to do as they wish. Leave christians and other alone to do as they wish. It's really about mutual and not one sided respect)

Well it goes to show you texting isn't a substitute for talking. I think we are saying the same thing just different ways. Maybe my john Adams reference made it seem that I said that the government can dictate free speech under normal circumstances, but I used that reference for extreme circumstances. I really meant the government won't support you against your peers assessment of what you say or do in public but they will allow you to say it.

As for this case I just think the kliens asked for it when they knew the law. Oregon is generally a liberal state and they are going to favor more left wing ideals. This probably had a settlement period in which the kliens probably thought it best to challenge the law in Oregon. I could care less about how this ends up but I think they shouldn't of acted without a plan like they seem to have done.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Well it goes to show you texting isn't a substitute for talking. I think we are saying the same thing just different ways. Maybe my john Adams reference made it seem that I said that the government can dictate free speech under normal circumstances, but I used that reference for extreme circumstances. I really meant the government won't support you against your peers assessment of what you say or do in public but they will allow you to say it.

As for this case I just think the kliens asked for it when they knew the law. Oregon is generally a liberal state and they are going to favor more left wing ideals. This probably had a settlement period in which the kliens probably thought it best to challenge the law in Oregon. I could care less about how this ends up but I think they shouldn't of acted without a plan like they seem to have done.

I get what you are saying, but in all fairness this is a completely new area of law. Should they have been better informed with a better plan? Probably so. I promise you there was a plan on the other side. That is obvious by the laws in place.

The more I have learned about John Adams the less respect I have held for him. Not 10 years after the ratification of the Constitution and 7 years after ratification of the Bill of Rights Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, effectively gutting free speech rights.

 

[81usaf92]

I get what you are saying, but in all fairness this is a completely new area of law. Should they have been better informed with a better plan? Probably so. I promise you there was a plan on the other side. That is obvious by the laws in place.

The more I have learned about John Adams the less respect I have held for him. Not 10 years after the ratification of the Constitution and 7 years after ratification of the Bill of Rights Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, effectively gutting free speech rights.

I know it is off topic but to Adams defense he was faced with English impressment or French when he suspended freedom of speech and his own vp was starting to rile up virginia and Kentucky to succeed from the union for it. So I think while extreme it possibly preserved the union because America was extremely weak after the revolution and it's unity had been tested twice during the whisky and shays rebellion. Hind sights 20/20

But the Oregon cake bakery thing will probably go further but I think they were asking for it when they knew the Bol commissioner was a big lgbt right activists that has openly said that he intends to rehabilitate biased owners into accepting gays in society. So my question is why would you want to risk it. They could've as easily explained that they were against gay marriage and asked if they would consider a different baker unless their heart was just set on that particular bakery

 

[NationalTitles18]

I know it is off topic but to Adams defense he was faced with English impressment or French when he suspended freedom of speech and his own vp was starting to rile up virginia and Kentucky to succeed from the union for it. So I think while extreme it possibly preserved the union because America was extremely weak after the revolution and it's unity had been tested twice during the whisky and shays rebellion. Hind sights 20/20

But the Oregon cake bakery thing will probably go further but I think they were asking for it when they knew the Bol commissioner was a big lgbt right activists that has openly said that he intends to rehabilitate biased owners into accepting gays in society. So my question is why would you want to risk it. They could've as easily explained that they were against gay marriage and asked if they would consider a different baker unless their heart was just set on that particular bakery

Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed measures after the acts to nullify them within the borders of those states in reaction to the acts. John Adams always had a loving eye toward the crown. The Acts went way too far and weren't needed.

Man, rehabilitation to accept the official government sanctioned view. Scary stuff.