Posted on 07/07/2015 7:24:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Oregon baker decision which required a bakery to pay $135,000 to a same-sex couple for refusing to prepare a cake for their same-sex commitment ceremony also ordered the bakers to:
cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.
Statutes prohibiting similar communications (including as to race, religion, and sex, and as to employment and housing as well as public accommodations) are common, and generally thought to be constitutional. But why? Heres what I think is the right answer, though I agree that courts havent been clear on it.
Assume that it is indeed against the law to refuse to serve someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on and, in particular, to refuse to provide a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony. Then, saying we will refuse[] to provide a cake is essentially a true threat of illegal conduct.
To be sure, it is not a threat of violence, or even a threat to commit a crime, but it is a threat to act illegally (by violating the anti-discrimination statute). And it is a threat that would have much the same effect as an outright refusal to provide a cake to someone who shows up and asks for it, because it tells people that its futile to even ask.
Indeed, I think wed see the same in lots of other situations where speech is properly treated as civilly actionable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes I was referring to post 12
It has been banned in Oregon and Brad Avakian will use the long arm statute to go after any site that publishes it where it might be seen in Oregon.
/s
RE: If I owned the bakery Id put a large sign stating my beliefs in plain English.
Would that include believing that marriage is only for one man and one woman?
Gay marriage is not a salient issue to me. I don’t care. And I’m not religious. I do have major issues with judicial activism, however. I believe that marriage was formed in order to promote a stable society and to produce children. That’s why the government confers benefits to married people.
I still don’t understand why anyone would want to force someone to make them a food item.
RE: I still dont understand why anyone would want to force someone to make them a food item.
Understand this — It is NOT about the wedding cake. The lesbian couple had MANY OTHER bakers who would do this for them.
It is about FORCING ACCEPTANCE of a lifestyle and NATIONALIZING it.
Of course it is. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Each person here should be working hard to get State Legislatures to enact SHIELD laws to prevent the craziness this author describes is good.. Shield Laws and laws to change from marriage licensing to after the fact marriage contract registration done on line or at a computer kiosk in the county clerks office — DONE DIY ...
Also get laws changed to remove the certification or licensing to perform marriage — do it in a church ... If anyone can marry then anyone can marry a couple.
Get government and business OUT OF THE MARRY BUSINESS.
So what about all those places that have the sign that reads, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”
Do they have to put a disclaimer(unless you happen to be gay, muslim or an illegal immigrant-then we are required by law to do your bidding)
Because it’s not about the food item. They never intended to use the cake. It’s about finding someone who says they won’t bake the cake, then suing them.
So.... can two men who are not gay get married ?
These people are not looking for someone to bake them a cake. They are looking for someone to refuse to bake them a cake.
Gays are so screwed.
Actually, the LAW is that if the bartender gives someone obviously drunk ANOTHER DRINK, and that drunk kills someone in an accident, the Bartender can lose their license and be held accountable for the death.
I.E. The bartender has a legal right, and duty to REFUSE SERVICE.
A gunshop owner can REFUSE to sell you a gun, by LAW.
Ergo we already have precedents in place supporting any kind of business owner’s right to REFUSE SERVICE.
In the first example you may have a case because that is discrimination based on religiouos beliefs, which is illegal. In the second two the bakers can refuse without fear of government interference because Klan members and Nazis are not a protected class.
Yes. I’m sure they will eventually be more prevalent.
What about marrying more than one person ?
That way I could marry one person just for the sex, and the other for the money.
Already being done in 20% of the world.
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.