How is this legal?

What am I missing? Just how is this legal? They paid the fine. Under what law can they continue the "punishment at their own discretion?

Something Sickening Was Just Done To Christian Bakers Who Refused To Make Lesbian Wedding Cake


"I panicked..."

Melody DareingDecember 30, 2015 at 12:13pm

Share on FacebookTweetEmailgovernment took every penny. The money was even taken from a separate account the couple uses to keep their church tithe. The amount totaled around $7,000.

“It was like my breath was taken away,” Melissa Klein said in a telephone interview. “I panicked. Everything was gone.”

The couple, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, faced the wrath of the state in 2013 after they would not bake a wedding cakefor a lesbian couple. While the Kleins will bake cakes for homosexuals for other events, like birthdays, Aaron Klein told the couple they could not support a lesbian commitment ceremony because of their Christian beliefs about marriage. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Oregon at the time. The couple held a commitment ceremony in June 2013 and were legally married on May 23, 2014, four days after same-sex marriage was legalized in Oregon.

Even though same-sex marriage was not yet legal in the state, the Kleins were hauled before the bureau on discrimination claims under the state’s public accommodations law. The government then ordered them to pay $136,927.07 judgment for causing “emotional suffering.” They paid it in full to avoid a state-mandated nine percent interest penalty, according to their attorney. The money was given to the Kleins through donations.

“The least expensive option to stay in compliance with the law was to pay the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries funds that will be kept in a separate account until they prevail in their court appeal,” said attorney Tyler Smith in a prepared statement regarding the case.

The couple had to shutter their retail shop and now work out of their home. They were also slapped with a gag order prohibiting them from speaking publicly about their decision to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex marriages.

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian said in a 2013 interview that he was not trying to shut Sweet Cakes by Melissa down. He wanted them to change their views.

“The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Still, closing the business and issuing a gag order was not enough forAvakian, who actively supports gay rights in his social media posts and public comments. He authorized the move to wipe out the Kleins’ bank accounts, even the one meant for the church.

 

I'd say what you're missing is a source that has its facts straight.

1) The Kleins have plenty of money. Their fellow religious zealots have given them at least $515,000.

2) Your source seems to have made a "mistake" regarding the timeline of events. The state garnished $7,000 from their bank accounts because they'd refused to pay the fine (despite having more than enough to pay it, see 1 above). It was after the garnishment that they decided to put up the money for the fine, not before.

 

So there is a law that permits taking more that the allotted fine if the culprit has the money? Could you please show me where that is written. From your referrence;
Altogether, the state has received roughly $144,000 from the Kleins – an amount that Burr acknowledged might be in excess of what was owed as of Monday, Dec. 28.

That is also what my article stated.

Since you responded, how about trying a couple of these?
How can anyone be punished for refusing to participate in an illegal act?
How can anyone be punished to "change their views"?
I have no idea how a person can be gagged AFTER a conviction.

 

That's funny, somehow you managed to miss the very next thing the oregonlive story quoted Burr as saying.

The garnishment was taken at a point when the Klein's had yet to put up any money. They then brought in a check for the amount that they owed before the garnishment. They could have taken the garnishment into account, but no doubt their lawyers advised them not to do that. That was their choice. The government never told them to overpay.

No it's not. You conveniently clipped the first part of the article, in which it is strongly implied that the Kleins had already paid the damage judgment when the state "wiped out" their bank accounts.

What illegal act are you referring to? Maybe you should spend some time acquainting yourself with the facts in this case, because it seems like you don't have a very good grasp of them.

You'll have to support the assertion that that is what is going on. Statement by Commissioner Avakian:

And more:

Again, you might try learning the facts.

1) The Kleins haven't been convicted of anything.

2) Read the ruling and show me where the Kleins are "gagged." I've already read it, and don't see anything stopping them from talking. They certainly haven't stopped talking, in fact they've given interviews to right-wing media outlets and have made public statements.

 

But it does not say that the amount owed was $144,000. In fact a simple math computation says they only owede ~$5,000 at most (depending on the date interest started accruing)

But it stated

At the time of their refusal. same sex marriages were illegal.

He specifically stated "The goal is to rehabilitate". Do you wish to parse words?

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.[/QUOTE]http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/s...make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/

Goody! Goody! Now anyone can get fined before they are convicted? You best acquaint yourself with the Constitution.

Now, just what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

The official acknowledged that the Kleins may have paid more than they owed. It seems like you're trying to make some sort of point here, but you're failing miserably.

I can't make any sense out of this--it appears to be a sentence fragment, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. My point stands. The original story makes it seem like the Kleins had already come up with the check for the damages judgment, then the government came and took the money out of their bank accounts. That is either very poor journalism, or intentionally deceptive.

The fact is that the couple wanted the cake for what is known as a handfasting ceremony, which was perfectly legal at the time of their request. The Kleins weren't asked to "participate" in anything. They were asked to make a cake, which was and is a perfectly legal act. The Kleins set up their business to provide cakes for members of the public like the woman and her mother who came to their store. The law in Oregon says that the Kleins are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The judge found that that is what they had done.

No need. Avakian unequivocally said that people are entitled to their beliefs. He's not trying to change the minds of these people. He is obliged to enforce the laws of the state, however, which govern people's actions. The judge determined that the cake shop discriminated on the basis of the sexual orientation of some customers; Avakian was following the law of the state. In context it's crystal clear that when he says "rehabilitate" he means that he wants the Kleins to continue in business while following the law, and not discriminating against people they think their god doesn't like. They're free to believe whatever they want, but that freedom doesn't give them the right to ignore the laws of the state in which they're doing business.

In regards to the "gag" nonsense, your propaganda piece from a right wing site is complete twaddle. The state of Oregon, like pretty much all states, has a law that says that it is illegal for businesses "to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause 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 the 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 race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older."

Thus, a sign saying something like "NO COLORED ALLOWED" and similar advertisement of discriminatory practices is against the law. Avakian's order is merely enforcing the law. The Kleins are free to go to any media outlet they like and blather about whatever they like, with one restriction: According to the law of the state of Oregon, they can't tell the world that their business will continue to discriminate against same-sex couples. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you investigate whether your state has a similar law (I'd be surprised if it doesn't) and then start a campaign to have it stricken from the books.

When you have to pay a parking ticket, what crime have you been convicted of? Are you trying to tell me that parking tickets are unconstitutional? Tell it to the parking enforcement bureau in your area.

The Kleins were ordered to pay damages. Just like people who have to pay parking tickets, that was completely in accord with the Constitution of the United States. If you think that it wasn't, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting your position.

 

You need to go argue for the defense that is was not a wedding and the ruling should be dismissed. From the final order, Findings of Fact, against the Kleins;

"On January 17, 2013, Cryer and McPherson visited Sweetcakes for a previously scheduled cake tasting appointment, intending to order a cake for Cryer’s wedding ceremony to Bowman-Cryer."

But you did anyway.

On the next parking ticket you get (I have never received one, but have read such) you need to read the thing you are signing when you pay. It states that you are admitting you guilt and waving your right to a trial. And, no, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Klein's trial . Out of that came the "final order" - after their trial.

WRONG!

Avakian took these general statements of the Kleins talking about their religious beliefs, the attack launched on them by Avakian’s agency, and their determination to not give in to government persecution, to “constitute notice that discrimination will be made in the future by refusing such services.” Avakian specifically made note of the Kleins’ statements that “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.” According to Avakian, as outlined on page 27 of his order, the Kleins’ “joint statement that they will ‘continue’ to stand strong relates to their denial of service and is prospective in nature. The statements, therefore, indicate Respondents’ clear intent to discriminate in the future just as they had done with Complainants.”

Therefore, Avakian entered his “cease and desist” language on page 42 and 43 preventing the Kleins from saying or publishing anything even remotely similar to all of the language he summarized in which the Kleins were clearly talking about their beliefs about same-sex marriage and their intent to continue to “stay strong” and fight this unfair, unjustified financial penalty and gag order.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/sorry-slate-oregon-did-put-a-gag-order-on-those-christian-bakers/

 

Well said, L'Emmerdeur. Thank you. When I saw this story I knew that it would soon show up here as an example of bigots, sorry, good God-fearing Christian folks having their rights trampled by the forces of evil.

Simply put, they fought the law and the law won. As I think the law should have in this case. At least it has so far. I'm sure they could find a way to take their case further based on the alleged "unconstitutional" treatment they suffered at the hands of the Oregon authorities. But they're probably more useful as martyrs.

Doesn't much matter what you believe. When putting those beliefs into practice involves breaking the law then you shouldn't whine too much if those charged with enforcing the law show up and make things difficult for you. That goes for religious knuckle draggers like the Kleins or national heroes like Edward Snowden. It's kind of a fact of life.

 

The actual event that the cake was being ordered for was a handfasting, aka a commitment ceremony. The couple were perfectly aware that they couldn't legally be married in the state of Oregon at that time. From the Final Order, point #40 in the Findings of Fact:

In addition, the Kleins stated in their affadavits that their refusal was because of their religious beliefs, not because of Oregon state law at the time. From the Proposed Order, page 46:

Again, they were not asking the Kleins to participate in anything, let alone in breaking any laws. They were simply asking them to make a cake. You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps, but the intention was to set the record straight. Avakian was not trying to change what the Kleins believe--he was enforcing the law of the state of Oregon, under which it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

As far as I'm aware, that applies to traffic violations, not parking tickets. From Traffic School To Go:

This was not a criminal trial, it was essentially a civil law hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. In civil law, nobody need be convicted of any crime to be liable for damages. Your attempt to characterize the damage award as "unconstitutional" is completely misplaced and shows once again that you are ill informed in regards to the facts.

Again, you are misinformed. The damage award was proposed by the Administrative Law Judge in his Proposed Order. If you read the linked document, you'll discover that the trial was held to determine whether the Kleins were liable for the damages.

This is dishonest spin from a right wing propaganda site. As I've pointed out, Avakian's final order was simply enforcing the law of the state of Oregon. The Kleins have continued to give interviews, including this one, which took place on July 15, 2015, nearly two weeks after Avakian's final order was issued on July 2, 2015--they haven't been "gagged."

 

Agreed. For now, the laws of the United States do not allow people to do whatever they like without consequences, even if they think what they're doing is following the decrees of YHVH.

 

The statute does seem pretty clear to me. Written or verbal statements regarding the liquor laws, which in Oregon mandate discrimination against those under 21 years old, and written or verbal statements regarding senior discounts, which are a legal form of special treatment in Oregon, are okay. And the attendant discrimination is okay. Verbal or written statements regarding your intent to discriminate against anyone who is part of a protected class, which seems to be just about everyone else, are not okay. Nor is such discrimination itself.

I can (must?) have a sign in my bar saying that we don't serve alcohol to anyone under 21, but I can't have a sign in my bar saying that we don't serve alcohol to Christians. Or women. Or Jews. Or people confined to wheelchairs. Or gays. Nor can I advertise such discrimination, nor can I engage in such discrimination.

I can bitch about the damn [fill in the blank] as much as I like. I can join the Klan or the Knights of Columbus. I can preach bigotry from the pulpit. I can protest Pride parades. I write books warning of Jewish conspiracies. I can mock the disabled. I can make fun of religious nutbags. But I still have to serve any member of the public who walks into my open-to-the-public bakery with a request that I am practically able to fulfill, and who has the money to pay for it, and who is not asking me to break any laws.

How much simpler can it get? None of this would be seen by rational members of a pluralistic secular society as anything other than an effort to insure that all people are treated equally by businesses serving the public. But apparently to Christians this is a violation of their religious freedom and an unacceptable limitation on their freedom of speech. You really don't want to turn your back on these people.

 

There are numerous references to "wedding" in that order not the least of which is they were buying a "wedding cake".

That is your interpretation.

I never said criminal. In fact, I never said crime. And I never said a damage award was unconstitutional. What I said was the excess over what was due was unconstitutional.
However, they had lawyers and they presented evidence. That is also referenced numerous times in the final order. I am not sure what you call that, but in my world, that is a trial.

There are numerous reference to trials for a parking ticket - many numerous. To save you the trouble, here is Eugene's which ought to be similar to Portland's.
How To Resolve a TicketThe following options are available to resolve a parking ticket:

• Pay the bail and appear at Parking Court. Parking Court is held on the second Thursday of each month (excluding holidays) at 8:30 a.m. in Eugene Municipal Court. If you choose to appear at court, please bring the ticket or a copy of the ticket with you.
• Pay the bail and plead not guilty. You will receive a trial notice from the court with the scheduled date and time of the trial.
• Pay the bail and submit a written explanation. The amount of bail must be paid in full for the explanation to be considered. If a written explanation is submitted, the right to a court hearing or appeal is waived, and the court's decision is final. You may send your written explanation by letter or complete the Parking Ticket Review form. This form is also available at the Eugene Municipal Court. If you wish to be notified of the court's ruling, a self-addressed, stamped envelope must be attached to your written explanation.
• Pay the bail due within 30 calendar days from the date of issue.

Had you read my reference, you would have seen that it was not just to "enforce the law of the state of Oregon" Your interpretation is a dishonest spin from a left wing propaganda site. And that included a superior court justice's opinion along with many lawyers.

I am still waiting for you to tell me what this has to do with the price of tea in China!

 

@L'Emmerdeur You have ventured down the rabbit hole of stupidity and been taken hostage by a creature that neither understands logic nor can be pinned down to any single point or position. Extricate yourself immediately and squat over the opening and fill it with as much excrement as you can muster and then walk away leaving @rlm's cents in the crap hole of his own making. Speaking from experience here.

 

I guess you cannot have facts interfering with your BS, now can you.

 

Thanks for the advice. Now that I think on it, I seem to recall trying to have a rational conversation with rlm's cents before, and being amazed at how completely impervious he was to facts and logic. It's clear that he hasn't changed.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem you're getting through to him with written abuse, either. Perhaps you get some satisfaction from it, though.

 

Getting through to him was never my objective. I am not a magician.

 

Getting through to anyone is your problem. You have not been able to convince anyone of anything except clueless and he cannot afford to disagree with your side.

 

Not a bit. I still require facts over and above you stating your position.

 

Hey! Since when should anyone be forced to make a wedding cake, or anything else for that matter, for anyone? Anyone who respects our constitution must also respect our right to refuse service to anyone at any time in our home, business. and property.

 

Hello, Daniel Jones.

The Kleins are offering a service to the public. In the state of Oregon, that includes homosexuals, and there is a law in that state which says that it is not legal for a business offering services to the public to refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. That is what judge found the Kleins had done.

You may think that it should be legal for a business to put up a sign saying something like "NO COLORED ALLOWED," and refuse to serve people that the business owner doesn't want to deal with, but the laws of the state of Oregon do not allow businesses to operate that way. Nobody forced the Kleins to go into business in the state of Oregon. If somebody can't operate their business according to the laws, they will suffer the consequences.