What's to stop a judge from preventing FR from operating in the future?
In addition to other emotional responses, RBC (Rachel Bowman-Cryer) described that being raised a Christian in the Southern Baptist Church, Respondent’s denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn’t supposed to be, that she wasn’t supposed to love or be loved, have a family, or go to heaven. LBC (Laurel Bowman-Cryer) who was raised Catholic, interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life… These are the reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everyone else.
Okay, let’s get this straight. These two women wanted Aaron and Melissa Klein to bake their wedding cake. Rachel and her mother came in to discuss it, and were told that the Kleins didn’t do same-sex weddings. Based on this policy (set by people they had never met before that day), the women concluded that they were not created by God, had no soul, were unworthy of love and would not go to heaven.
According to the Oregon Labor Commission, these were reasonable conclusions, based on their failure to procure a cake. I realize that most bureaucrats don’t have advanced degrees in theology. Do you need one here? The phrase “non-sequitur” doesn’t fully seem to cover it.
I don’t think any judge can do that.
Time for 2nd Amendment to kick in. Don’t pay a dime.
Oregon Ping
Now the thought police are coming for us.
and where exactly does the good judge live?
The authoress wrote of the Oregon Labor Commissioner’s edict. He’s a bureaucrat.
It isn’t a judgement. It is a diktat. BIG DIFFERENCE.
This is such absolute BS, the free market and competition deals with issues like this and it’s absolutely no right of the government to get involved. This is a clear violation of religious freedom, if it isn’t, then lets see them go into an Islamic bookstore and demand gay literature be sold.
When I see a sign on a restaurant that says "No Bikers" or "No Biker Attire" it tells me the proprietor of that restaurant does not want to prepare and serve food for me, and I find somewhere else to eat.
I then avoid the place in question even when not on a bike and/or not dressed in "biker attire". I would never even consider trying to force the people in the restaurant to prepare a meal for me.
We used to call this: Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, Title 18, section 242
Brad Avakian has some interesting information showing up on Zabasearch (public domain).
http://www.zabasearch.com/people/bradley+p+avakian/portland+or/2719694444
Isn’t there a big organization of lawyers that are totally dedicated to the pro bono defense of 1st amendment cases especially where the perpetrator is the government?
Do I really need to put a /sarc on this?
The undesirables must be identified and removed. They stink and are a blot on our progressive society. But, let’s do it legally. Then in the name of law, we can mark them, shut down their businesses, force them out of work, pack them up and ship them off to the camps so we don’t have to see them, and where work will set them free.
They don’t exist. What happens to them in the camps is irrelevant; as long as our progressive brave new world does not have to see them or acknowledge their existence or non-existence.
This autocratic buffoon is not even a judge, but an unelected bureaucrat who runs Oregon’s Department of Labor.
Would it be better for them to speak out and have the judge go after them or to file an appeal against his ruling?
I hope the family has a good lawyer. Now is not the time to represent yourself. How can that couple sleep at night, doing such a spiteful, evil thing? Who employs the lesbian couple?
THE BILL OF RIGHTS - Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It will be the obligation of the state attorney general to defend this travesty of a ruling in court. If there are grown-ups in charge, the state won't mount much of defense of its indefensible actions here. On the other hand, I seriously doubt whether there are many, if any, grown-ups working at the AG’s office in the state of Oregon, as the government of the state is overrun with communists, zealots and lunatics.
Move to another state.
In a way, this is great. The new court order shows the huge overreaching of the lower court.
This will ride the rocket to SCOTUS, and even the two lesbians on the court will have trouble with this.
This might not even make it past the 9th Circuit/Circus in SF!