Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

CowboysFromHell said:

You're free to murder someone, just realize you will face consequences for your actions. But, you're free to do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you not to commit murder.

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

I have to agree with tommyboy on this one. Maybe Sally Kohn was just having a bad day, but that line of argument was ineffective.

Click to expand...

Tennessee_ATO said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

I have to agree with tommyboy on this one. Maybe Sally Kohn was just having a bad day, but that line of argument was ineffective.

Click to expand...

I'm a big ole lib and I'll push an argument to a pretty extreme position at times, and even I think Kohn's position is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed.

Government "forces" behavior via laws, not literally grabbing someone and physically forcing them to do it.

Click to expand...

squistion said:

Tennessee_ATO said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

I have to agree with tommyboy on this one. Maybe Sally Kohn was just having a bad day, but that line of argument was ineffective.

Click to expand...

I'm a big ole lib and I'll push an argument to a pretty extreme position at times, and even I think Kohn's position is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed.

Government "forces" behavior via laws, not literally grabbing someone and physically forcing them to do it.

Click to expand...

Which she would seem to agree with:

"This all seems simple when we talk about driving, but somehow a fringe set of right wing conservatives want us all to believe that hapless business owners are somehow being forced, against their will, to serve pizza to gay people. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't want to serve pizza to gay people, by all means, don't which, by the way, is legal in Indiana and 28 other states, but even where it is illegal, you're still free to do so and deal with the consequences of breaking the law."

Click to expand...

badmojo1006 said:

Zach Braff and Donald Faison have an offer if you want to have a Gay Wedding in Indiana. If you want Pizza, they will make it for you.

Click to expand...

the moops said:

Seems eerily similar to the conservative argument years ago that went something like "gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just like every heterosexual is".

Click to expand...

Jayrok said:

Clifford said:

If business want to quote Leviticus as part of their defense of religious freedom to discriminate, make them renounce Christ and convert to Orthodox Judaism on the spot.

Click to expand...

I would say that such a business or organization (outside of the Westboro Baptist bunch) would use Paul's epistles, as opposed to Leviticus, to hate on homosexuals. Jesus is not recorded to say anything derogatory about homosexuals, but Paul could be perceived to have condoned such treatment of others. But in the case of the pizza lady, as with many others Christians who would discriminate, I think she misunderstands what Paul is actually saying.

Click to expand...

Tennessee_ATO said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

I have to agree with tommyboy on this one. Maybe Sally Kohn was just having a bad day, but that line of argument was ineffective.

Click to expand...

I'm a big ole lib and I'll push an argument to a pretty extreme position at times, and even I think Kohn's position is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed.

Government "forces" behavior via laws, not literally grabbing someone and physically forcing them to do it.

Click to expand...

beavers said:

So did Indiana change the law yet? Or did we move onto something new?

Click to expand...

State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135KOregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.

Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April.

But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision.

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”


The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.

Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April.

But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, was shocked by the provision.

“Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do not agree with government sanctioned ideas.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, called the order “outrageous” and said citizens of Oregon should be “ashamed.”

“This order is an outrageous abuse of the rights of the Kleins to freely practice their religion under the First Amendment,” he said.

The case began in February 2013 when Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint against the Kleins for refusing to bake them a wedding cake.

It is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America. And Commissioner Avakian’s order that the Kleins stop speaking about this case is even more outrageous—and also a fundamental violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment.

Avakian would have fit right in as a bureaucrat in the Soviet Union or Red China. Oregon should be ashamed that such an unprincipled, scurrilous individual is a government official in the state.

At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon.

The Bowman-Cryers’ complaint went to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, which is in charge of defending the law that prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics, called the Equality Act of 2007.

In January 2014, the agency found the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the couple because of their sexual orientation. In April, McCullough recommended they pay $75,000 to Rachel and $60,000 to Laurel.

In order to reach the total amount, $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.

Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

In their Facebook post, the Kleins signaled their intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of violating the cease and desist.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a pretty amazing case - not only are these people being almost forced out of business with a punitive fine, but they have been ordered to not even talk about the process.

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a pretty amazing case - not only are these people being almost forced out of business with a punitive fine, but they have been ordered to not even talk about the process.

Click to expand...

That's not what the order says as quoted in the article. It says that they're barred from saying "We won't serve gay people." They can still talk about the case other than that -- and indeed, later in the article, it says that they've posted about the case on Facebook.

Click to expand...

Sorry, this content isn't available right nowThe link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you're not in.

Click to expand...

“According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a pretty amazing case - not only are these people being almost forced out of business with a punitive fine, but they have been ordered to not even talk about the process.

Click to expand...

That's not what the order says as quoted in the article. It says that they're barred from saying "We won't serve gay people." They can still talk about the case other than that -- and indeed, later in the article, it says that they've posted about the case on Facebook.

Click to expand...

Aren't they then in violation of the order? How do they speak of the order without speaking about the nature of their case?

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a pretty amazing case - not only are these people being almost forced out of business with a punitive fine, but they have been ordered to not even talk about the process.

Click to expand...

That's not what the order says as quoted in the article. It says that they're barred from saying "We won't serve gay people." They can still talk about the case other than that -- and indeed, later in the article, it says that they've posted about the case on Facebook.

Click to expand...

Aren't they then in violation of the order? How do they speak of the order without speaking about the nature of their case?

Click to expand...

According to the order as quoted in the article, there's nothing wrong with speaking of the order or speaking about the nature of their case.

Here is what the article says:

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

All that says is that the Kleins are not allowed to say "We refuse service to gay people."

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a pretty amazing case - not only are these people being almost forced out of business with a punitive fine, but they have been ordered to not even talk about the process.

Click to expand...

That's not what the order says as quoted in the article. It says that they're barred from saying "We won't serve gay people." They can still talk about the case other than that -- and indeed, later in the article, it says that they've posted about the case on Facebook.

Click to expand...

Aren't they then in violation of the order? How do they speak of the order without speaking about the nature of their case?

Click to expand...

According to the order as quoted in the article, there's nothing wrong with speaking of the order or speaking about the nature of their case.

Here is what the article says:

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

All that says is that the Kleins are not allowed to say "We refuse service to gay people."

Click to expand...

Well their post is now down.

I think it's fairly well impossible to speak of a gag order in the case without explaining what their case is about. This is pretty jesuitical hair splitting.

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a pretty amazing case - not only are these people being almost forced out of business with a punitive fine, but they have been ordered to not even talk about the process.

Click to expand...

That's not what the order says as quoted in the article. It says that they're barred from saying "We won't serve gay people." They can still talk about the case other than that -- and indeed, later in the article, it says that they've posted about the case on Facebook.

Click to expand...

Aren't they then in violation of the order? How do they speak of the order without speaking about the nature of their case?

Click to expand...

According to the order as quoted in the article, there's nothing wrong with speaking of the order or speaking about the nature of their case.

Here is what the article says:

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

All that says is that the Kleins are not allowed to say "We refuse service to gay people."

Click to expand...

Well their post is now down.

I think it's fairly well impossible to speak of a gag order in the case without explaining what their case is about. This is pretty jesuitical hair splitting.

Click to expand...

Based on the article, it doesn't appear to be a gag order. The author called it "an effective gag order," but that appears to be a mischaracterization. Going by the quote in the article, the order is just an injunction not to break the law. Oregon law apparently prohibits places of public accommodation (like bakeries) from saying that they won't serve gay people. The judge is ordering them to comply with that law.

Based on the order as quoted in the article, the order is not telling them not to speak about the case, or to explain what their case is about, or to speak of a gag order.

Click to expand...

But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

Click to expand...

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

Click to expand...

dhockster said:

So if they said today "based on our religious beliefs, we still do not think it was wrong that we did not bake them a wedding cake", would that violate the judges order? They would not be saying anything in regard to whether they would currently bake them a wedding cake. And since their business is currently out of business, does that affect what they can say? They no longer have a business that could discriminate.

Click to expand...