If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Posted on 01/26/2022 6:54:55 PM PST by aimhigh
The Oregon Court of Appeals for a second time Wednesday upheld a ruling by the state civil rights division that found that a Gresham bakery illegally discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake in 2013.
However, the court found that the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries did not exhibit religious neutrality in issuing an $135,000 fine to Sweet Cakes by Melissa for illegal discrimination and sent the case back to the civil rights division to reassess its fine. . . .
But the court found Wednesday that the Supreme Court’s rulings didn’t change its interpretation of whether Sweet Cakes by Melissa had violated the state’s nondiscrimination statutes.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
10 years of legal torture.
Insanity!
Eff the evil monsters from Hell on the SC.
This non-discrimination crud has to stop. It should be a violation of the 4th Amendment, period.
Query this: has anyone thought it would be bad for a bakery to refuse to make a pornographic cake?
Would that be a violation of “non-discrimination”?
Even Europe doesn’t put up with this crap.
How about $1.35?
I guess you can fine a church for not performing homosexual weddings. Or Moslem weddings.
If you are thinking of a recent case that I’m thinking of, the EU merely said that if you want us to intervene to stomp on religious rights, we will only do so if you ask us deferentially. It was hardly a resounding victory.
THIS is why citizens in state after state passed constitutional marriage amendments.
That was probably it, thanks.
The next level of persecution will be with Pedophiles.
If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Oregon was one of those states. Approved by over 60% of Oregon's voters.
Im sure the faggots could buy any cake they wanted, her business simply didn’t sell gay wedding cakes.
They would sold them any other cake.
All of these high profile "homophobic discrimination" cases are the same.
They searched out or knew someone with religious convictions and set out to destroy them, as an example.
Of course, they never try it with a muslim bakery.
Protecting their voting records makes it easier for career lawmakers to get reelected imo.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Ironically, Congress seems to be more concerned with making politically correct, vote-winning rights protections that are constitutionally indefensible imo.
Insights welcome.
At some point someone is going to snap. These homos are targeting Christian bakers on purpose to destroy their businesses.
I would have just told the gays I’ll be closed, or my schedule is full.
The article says that they refused to SELL them a cake. Wasn’t the real story that they refused to BAKE a queer cake?
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.