Oregon

[gunslingerdick]

Here's another situation I need someone to explain to me. Gag order? For real?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...rs-who-refused-to-bake-cake-for-lesbians.html

 

[Heels in Space]

Where does it say they can't speak publicly about the case?

"The Kleins were ordered 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.'”

It just says they can't continue to publicly declare that their business will refuse service to homosexuals, which is a violation of Oregon law. This is no different than if a business was found guilty of racial discrimination but wanted to keep announcing that they won't serve blacks. The agency here just said that Oregon law prohibits them from refusing service and announcing that they will refuse service to gays.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Where does it say they can't speak publicly about the case?

"The Kleins were ordered 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.'”

It just says they can't continue to publicly declare that their business will refuse service to homosexuals, which is a violation of Oregon law. This is no different than if a business was found guilty of racial discrimination but wanted to keep announcing that they won't serve blacks. The agency here just said that Oregon law prohibits them from refusing service and announcing that they will refuse service to gays.

I was hoping you'd respond @Heels in Space because I really do consider you to be our board expert on legal matters. So are the bakery owners lying? That wouldn't surprise me and I honestly was looking forward to your take.

But I had a further question - could the bakery, if they chose to, become a "private" bakery where they charge a membership fee (even as little as 10 cents) and then because they are private, refuse service to whomever they wanted? Is that legal? Because I remember some bars back in college that had done that to essentially keep the riff raff out.

 

[tazki]

Oregon is nothing but another politically correct liberal state. This country is on a downward spiral. Of course this is in the Bible, which some of you claim as a joke. Oh well.

 

[heelmanwilm]

First of all i dont have a prob with gays or the scotus decision. BUT imo any private business should be able to choose to refuse service to anyone. Not so with govt agencies of course.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Oregon is nothing but another politically correct liberal state. This country is on a downward spiral. Of course this is in the Bible, which some of you claim as a joke. Oh well.

Whats in the Bible? That we're in a spiral?

 

[tazki]

Whats in the Bible? That we're in a spiral?

You just proved my point.

 

[heelmanwilm]

You just proved my point.

Hmmm i dont follow u. I just asked. Are u talking about gays or spiralling or liberalism or what?

 

[tazki]

Hmmm i dont follow u. I just asked. Are u talking about gays or spiralling or liberalism or what?

All of the above.

 

[Heels in Space]

I was hoping you'd respond @Heels in Space because I really do consider you to be our board expert on legal matters. So are the bakery owners lying? That wouldn't surprise me and I honestly was looking forward to your take.

But I had a further question - could the bakery, if they chose to, become a "private" bakery where they charge a membership fee (even as little as 10 cents) and then because they are private, refuse service to whomever they wanted? Is that legal? Because I remember some bars back in college that had done that to essentially keep the riff raff out.

My guess is that they misunderstood the agency's order rather than lying, but I really have no idea. I'm just going off the quote from the article, which doesn't say anything about speaking out about their views, etc. It just says that the business can't continue to advertise that it doesn't serve gays. I think the owners are probably just angry about losing their case and are really feeling the victim vibe.

As for the private club thing, I don't know. I still don't think you could exclude a class of people on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc, but I'm just guessing. I remember the private club thing in Chapel Hill. I still had my membership card to Hell up until a few years ago. But I think maybe that had to do with liquor laws and the bars not wanting to serve food?

 

[prlyles]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I have always thought that a public business could refuse service to anybody for any reason EXCEPT the groups protected under the constitution, (race, sex, religion, etc..)

 

[heelmanwilm]

All of the above.

Well rest easy. Revelations prophecy concerns Gods judgement of israel and the church as far as institutions go. Not the united states. So u have far more to worry about if you're a member of the church rather than as an american or oregonian.

 

[Heels in Space]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I have always thought that a public business could refuse service to anybody for any reason EXCEPT the groups protected under the constitution, (race, sex, religion, etc..)

Under the constitution or statute (state or federal). Oregon state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The bakery's actions would be legal in a lot of states, but not in Oregon.

 

[prlyles]

Under the constitution or statute (state or federal). Oregon state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The bakery's actions would be legal in a lot of states, but not in Oregon.

So what you're saying is sexual orientation is not federally protected? I'm asking I don't know the answer..

 

[Heels in Space]

So what you're saying is sexual orientation is not federally protected? I'm asking I don't know the answer..

That's exactly right. Unless a state constitution or state law protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then people and businesses are free to refuse to serve gays, refuse to hire them, rent to them, etc. just because they're gay. But because Oregon prohibits this, if you're going to sell wedding cakes to straight people, you have to sell them to gay people too.

 

[gunslingerdick]

That's exactly right. Unless a state constitution or state law protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then people and businesses are free to refuse to serve gays, refuse to hire them, rent to them, etc. just because they're gay. But because Oregon prohibits this, if you're going to sell wedding cakes to straight people, you have to sell them to gay people too.

But don't people, even business owners, have a right to not participate in something that's against their beliefs? Isn't that federally protected?

See there's a difference in a baker refusing to make a gay person a birthday cake and a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The former is indeed discrimination because if it's a birthday cake, and the baker is not being asked to participate in something that he or she doesn't believe in. If it's a wedding cake, then they are directly supporting something that goes against their religious beliefs.

 

[Heels in Space]

But don't people, even business owners, have a right to not participate in something that's against their beliefs? Isn't that federally protected?

See there's a difference in a baker refusing to make a gay person a birthday cake and a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The former is indeed discrimination because if it's a birthday cake, and the baker is not being asked to participate in something that he or she doesn't believe in. If it's a wedding cake, then they are directly supporting something that goes against their religious beliefs.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so this is getting a little out of my expertise, but the Free Exercise clause, like all constitutional rights, is not absolute, especially when it is used to deny rights to specific classes of people. It is primarily intended to permit people to worship as they please without government interference, so it gets a lot murkier when people try to use it to refuse service to people based on a religious disapproval of their behavior. An exaggerated example would be if I was an adherent to an ultra-orthodox sect that interpreted the Bible as endorsing the inferiority of women, that would not allow my business to refuse service to women who did not have a man with them. Even if my belief was sincerely held, it would yield to women's equal rights in that case. My right to believe as I chose would not be infringed, nor would my right to speak publicly about my beliefs--just my right to act on them to the detriment of others.

The wedding cake issue is similar. Anti-discrimination statutes do not stop anyone from believing or speaking out about whatever they want, but when religious grounds are used to justify disparate treatment of an entire class of people, the law takes a much harder look at the justification. The bottom line in this case was that a straight customer could order the cake and be served while a gay customer could order the exact same cake and be refused. If this was allowed, there would be no logical reason why religious people could not refuse to serve gay people in all kinds of contexts. After all, religious disapproval of homosexuality is not limited to marriage. The opposition to gay marriage stems from a broader religious disapproval of homosexuality generally. It's not a stretch to imagine religious owners of hotels or religious landlords refusing to rent to gay couples on moral grounds. This would eviscerate the anti-discrimination statute.