Though legal, this is still a restriction on free speech, so I wouldn't say that it has been "unimpaired". This restriction is directly tied to public accommodations law and the presumed effect that such speech will have on the behavior of others. There is no blanket law making it illegal to announce your intent to break the law.He wasn't a judge, and their right to free speech is unimpaired. They have no right to futher break the law, and they have been warned of this. Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon and elsewhere. Fundies and cultists are the worst.
Though legal, this is still a restriction on free speech, so I wouldn't say that it has been "unimpaired". This restriction is directly tied to public accommodations law and the presumed effect that such speech will have on the behavior of others. There is no blanket law making it illegal to announce your intent to break the law.
I actually hope there's some deep flaw in this article and it will be debunked quickly. Otherwise this is too ominous.
Judge to Bakers: No Free Speech for You - Rachel Lu, The Federalist
By decree of the great state of Oregon, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa must pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple whom they “mentally raped” by refusing to bake their wedding cake. This was expected, but the final judgment, handed down last Thursday, came with another twist. Aaron and Melissa Klein have also been given a “cease and desist” order, which effectively decrees they must refrain from stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs.
Land of the What-Was-That?
Let’s be clear on why this is so sinister. There are times when speech rights conflict with other legitimate social goods. The public’s right to know can conflict with individual privacy rights. Sometimes threats to public safety warrant keeping secrets. There can be interesting debates about intellectual property rights. These cases can get tricky, and we should all understand that speech rights necessarily do have certain pragmatic limits.
None of those concerns apply here. The Kleins did not threaten public safety. They violated no one’s privacy or property rights. Rather, the Oregon labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, wanted to silence them because the content of their speech. Presumably he was angry that the Kleins’ defiant stance had earned them a potentially profitable reputation as heroes for religious freedom. They were meant to be humiliated and cowed; instead there was a real chance they would land on their feet. So they had to be gagged to prevent that from happening.
If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a case like this, it is meaningless. . . .
Hmmm. Are you saying that if I announce that I favor bank robbery but take no action to actually rob banks I have committed a crime?
When it comes to the law, one should always take care in understanding the fine print.Thank you for the fine print redifinition of yes to mean no. They were told not to repeat illegal statements. Their huffing and puffing notwithstanding.
Well, a good part of income is already stolen to help the poor, so...
Under Oregon's public accommodation laws, they cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. They also can't say they won't bake a cake for a mixed race marriage or any one of a number of protected classes of people according to Oregon law. This is nothing new.
Since the cease and desist order is not quoted, I have no comment other than Oregon apparently made it clear they can't post a sign about it either.
Yes, posting a sign saying you won't serve gay people is the same as telling gay people to their face that you won't serve them. The medium makes no difference. Either way, it's discrimination.
He wasn't a judge, and their right to free speech is unimpaired. They have no right to futher break the law, and they have been warned of this. Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon and elsewhere. Fundies and cultists are the worst.
They're called inchoate offenses: Conspiracy, attempt, incitement and solicitation.
Attempted murder. Conspiracy to distribute. Online solicitation of a minor. Etc.
Here's a law in Oregon that describes inchoate offenses.
ORS 161.485 - Multiple convictions barred in inchoate crimes - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
They're called inchoate offenses: Conspiracy, attempt, incitement and solicitation.
Attempted murder. Conspiracy to distribute. Online solicitation of a minor. Etc.
Here's a law in Oregon that describes inchoate offenses.
ORS 161.485 - Multiple convictions barred in inchoate crimes - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
He wasn't a judge, and their right to free speech is unimpaired. They have no right to futher break the law, and they have been warned of this. Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon and elsewhere. Fundies and cultists are the worst.
Announcing your intent to break the law in future is itself unlawful in Oregon
The effect of them not getting served is that they don't get the service in question and must find someone else to trade with. The effect of being told someone won't serve you is...ummm...
Cite for me the statute or perhaps Oregon judicial opinion in which it is stated, "Announcing your intent to break the law in future" is unlawful.
The "effect" is that if they are breaking the law by doing that they will be made responsible. "Separate but equal" is no longer a legal excuse for discrimination.
Oregon Revised Statute 659A.409 -->> https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors659a.html
It is against the law for a business qualifying as a public accommodation to "published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect" that it plans to discriminate in violation of Oregon's Public Accommodation law.
>>>>
The legal doctrine of separate but equal is of no standing to my argument. The effect of not providing service is always that the service is not provided. While the courts might have said that the equal protection clause applied to private enterprise in reality the only party that is bound by it is the state.
The idea that blacks could go elsewhere to be served is the same argument you gave. The fact that there are other places that may serve someone is not a excuse for discrimination.
Yes, advertising that you don't serve gay people has the same effect as not serving them.
As a gay man I would take my money elsewhere it's the shop owners decision and loss Overall gay couples have more disposable income than straight couples due to the fact most do not have a kids to support
It's the shop owners loss not mine
I am sure there are many more bakeries that would take my $$ with a smile on there face irregardless of who I choose to hang with
i always ask the question- how can the government make a law which violates a right?
Do you think that all law should be sharia compliant not to violate the rights of Muslims?
What is your opinion of United States v. Brittian when Christians government officials tried to use religion as a basis for racial discrimination regarding civil marriages of interracial couples?
>>>>