Posted on 02/04/2015 1:28:16 PM PST by Enlightened1
Christian owners of a bakery in Gresham, Oregon, who were forced to close their business in 2013 due to backlash over their refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding based on religious objections, were found guilty of discrimination Monday and now have to pay the couple up to $150,000 in fines.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, Aaron and Melissa Klein, will have to pay the sapphic couple. Whether or not they pay the maximum $150,000 fine will be determined at a hearing on March 10 BOLI spokesman, Charlie Burr
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Tell the “Bureau” to sit and spin.
I had a bit more profane statement to make if it had been me. How about "Kiss my ass".
I could have sworn we used sugar!
Sorry about dat! ..come see us again.
I bet the judge is a carpet muncher
The end of religious freedom in America.
Do not go to the state of Oregon. It is not friendly to Christians.
They chose not to provide a service based on a behavior – not based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity (which is illegal). A lawyer doesn’t have to represent clients that engage in activities that he finds morally repugnant (behavior) — a plumber or electrician can make the same choice. A restaurant may refuse to deliver pizza to an abortion clinic or may refuse to let patrons bring alcohol to drink with dinner even if the restaurant’s motivation is moral disapproval (behavior). Businesses impose dress codes on patrons and refuse to allow patrons who wear T-shirts containing messages that they see as repugnant (behavior). Refusing service based on behavior is not illegal.
If this Christian couple loses on appeal, a crowd funding effort should be launched for them, and their fellow Christians should help them pay this unjust fine.
I can think of a better approach than outright refusal...
Then we are no longer a free country, and should not even pretend to be, or give lip service to being one.
America has become an anti-Christian state. Where do your loyalties lie?
Oregon’s constitution comes right out and says jury nullification is legal and expected. I doubt that any judge includes that in his instructions to the jury.
This once-great country is willingly eliminating itself.
Washington, particularly around Seattle, is just as bad. The florist Barronelle Stutzman is being sueD by the state TO TAKE HER HOME because of the same state fascism.
absolutely = accidentally. Oy!
Morality is now a crime!!
Then why were those bakers fined for not making a cake for those LGBT people?
With all due respect to mom & pop, the consequence of the parents of the owners of the referenced bakery not making sure that their children were taught about 10th Amendment protected state powers versus constitutionally enumerated rights is this. The owners of the bakery are not able to argue the following points to protect themselves from anti-Christian Oregon state officials.
Simply put, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues like gay marriage, the State of Oregon is in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment for unreasonably abridging the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens, the right of religious expression in this example.
The problem is that pro-gay activist judges and state officials are exploiting PC interpretations of 14A’s Equal Protections clause (EPC) imo, using that clause to argue that state laws protecting constitutionally unprotected rights trump constitutionally enumerated rights. But they are ignoring that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A did not add any new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s clarification of 14A reflects the official clarification of that amendment in the congressional record by John Bingham, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of 14A.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
Again, since the business owners in question were probably never taught about the 14th Amendment, they are unable to argue that their constitutionally enumerated right of religious expression trumps state laws which protect constitutionally unprotected rights.
As a side note to this discussion, please consider the following. The Founding States respected the right not to do business with somebody as evidenced by key wording in the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I.
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State [emphasis added] in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
Why is the fine $150,000?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.