The Oregon Bakery Truth

[Kenngo1969]

Any chance of appealing this outside of BOLI, to the courts?  Anyone know?

[california boy]

Let's all agree that the bakery "broke the law" (at least, the law as it is currently constituted).

What bothers me about the Bureau of Labor ruling are two things:

1) the order not to talk negatively about the ruling in public

2) the order that the $135,000 be paid out of "personal assets" and not "business assets."

It appears to me that the intent is to ruin the couple personally, not to see that "justice" is administered or that the plaintiff's "pain and suffering" be mitigated. How in the world in this country can anybody order anybody not to comment negatively about a ruling, or demand that personal and not business assets be used to pay a fine resulting from business practice? In the past, I would say that this will be overturned when it goes to the courts, but no one can say anything will or will not happen in the courts now.

I think because this is an ongoing case. The bakery is appealing the ruling and they were using the media to try the case. The judge put a stop to that. It is not uncommon in these kinds of cases.

[Avatar4321]

Well the case sure isn't about being able to get a cake.

[Avatar4321]

The case facts: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweetcakes%20signed%20PO.pdf

The bakery broke the law. You don't get to break the law because you have different feelings than other people. If you're uncomfortable operating a business in a lawful manner then find a new business, or, better yet, find a new god.

Why should anyone be forced to change their religious views simply because some power hungry people are so insecure with their faith or lack there of that they want to force others to agree with them with the threat of violence?

[Kenngo1969]

Any chance of appealing this outside of BOLI, to the courts?  Anyone know?

I was going to page Danzo  but I found it:

 

 

 

The Kleins have 60 days [from July 2, I believe, when the order was issued] to file a petition for judicial review with the Oregon Court of Appeals and a request for a stay of enforcement with the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_same-sex_discrimin.html

 

(Apologies if this has already been posted. )

 

Thanks.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I certainly don't follow it regularly enough to know, but I doubt the Oregonian can be considered a bastion of conservative thought. (Hell, are there any conservatives, besides Garden Girl, left in Oregon?  )  While the paper can't resist getting in its digs against the Kleins, it's not sparing in its criticism of Commissioner Avakian, either.  (Apologies if this has already been posted.):

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/bolis_sweet_cakes_judgment_tak.html#incart_related_stories

[SmileyMcGee]

Why should anyone be forced to change their religious views simply because some power hungry people are so insecure with their faith or lack there of that they want to force others to agree with them with the threat of violence?

Hmmm...your persecution complex is showing. Who is being forced? And how?

[tonie]

I certainly don't follow it regularly enough to know, but I doubt the Oregonian can be considered a bastion of conservative thought. (Hell, are there any conservatives, besides Garden Girl, left in Oregon?   )  While the paper can't resist getting in its digs against the Kleins, it's not sparing in its criticism of Commissioner Avakian, either.  (Apologies if this has already been posted.):

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/bolis_sweet_cakes_judgment_tak.html#incart_related_stories

 

Good find, that is a great editorial.

 

"In a bewildering order in desperate need of logic and common sense, Avakian not only imposes on the Kleins a $135,000 judgment but also basically revokes their right to free speech."

 

I agree, the order has a desperate need of logic.  I also like that the editorial pointed out at least one of the cases used to justify the fine - I thought there would be some shenanigans found in using the other cases - those cases do not justify an award to the couple. 

 

I  hope this case goes far; I think the end ultimate result will be the bakery discriminated - the damages are excessive.

[tonie]

Any chance of appealing this outside of BOLI, to the courts?  Anyone know?

 

I beleive Danzo said an appeal is being worked on. What he posted also made it sound like, the appeal can address aspects not covered in the ALJ ruling or other proceedings.

[Kenngo1969]

Hmmm...your persecution complex is showing. Who is being forced? And how?

Oh, please!  I may not agree with everything the Kleins have done; I certainly think they could have handled this matter better.  But when even The Oregonian (hardly a bastion of conservative thought, I'm sure) thinks that Commissioner Avakian went overboard, that's a pretty good sign that the actions of Avakian and of BOLI are out of bounds.  Read The Oregonian's editorial that I linked to.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I beleive Danzo said an appeal is being worked on. What he posted also made it sound like, the appeal can address aspects not covered in the ALJ ruling or other proceedings.

 

 

The material I linked to earlier doesn't explicitly say that an appeal is in the works, but, given what the Kleins have said publicly, it would surprise me if it weren't.  It's interesting what you say about the scope of issues on appeal: generally, an appeal is limited to issues raised in the court or other adjudicative body below; perhaps the rules of evidence and procedure (assuming they even apply: in administrative hearings, often, they don't) are relaxed in this type of a proceeding.

 

 

I  hope this case goes far; I think the end ultimate result will be the bakery discriminated - the damages are excessive.

 

 

Under Oregon law, it probably did.  (I don't have any special insight into, or expertise in, Oregon law, except that I believe the state has posted Border Guards along its eastern border in order to turn away anyone who even hints that he might be, to however small a degree, conservative .)  The debate will continue about the soundness of such laws and their aims, but as it stands now, it probably did.  And I agree with you about damages.  As I've said numerous times, you want to sue me for not baking a cake?  Fine; sue away.  But prove by the relevant evidentiary standard that your efforts to obtain a similar service at a similar price were unavailing, and your damages should be limited to what I would have charged you and what someone else did charge you, along with relevant expenses.  I'm not one who, necessarily, thinks that the entire concept of emotional harm should be done away with in law, but I also think that those who are prone to getting their widdo feewings hurt should probably grow a thicker skin.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[filovirus]

I certainly don't follow it regularly enough to know, but I doubt the Oregonian can be considered a bastion of conservative thought. (Hell, are there any conservatives, besides Garden Girl, left in Oregon?   )  While the paper can't resist getting in its digs against the Kleins, it's not sparing in its criticism of Commissioner Avakian, either.  (Apologies if this has already been posted.):

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/bolis_sweet_cakes_judgment_tak.html#incart_related_stories

Another conservative here.  . The Oregonian is usually pretty good at getting the facts out without too much opinion from the writers. It's the Statesman Journal that is very liberal. BTW, it is now legal in Oregon for 15-year-olds to have a sex change without parents permission or knowledge. How's that for Oregon?

[SmileyMcGee]

Oh, please! I may not agree with everything the Kleins have done; I certainly think they could have handled this matter better. But when even The Oregonian (hardly a bastion of conservative thought, I'm sure) thinks that Commissioner Avakian went overboard, that's a pretty good sign that the actions of Avakian and of BOLI are out of bounds. Read The Oregonian's editorial that I linked to.

Was addressing Av's claim of being "forced" to change religious views not the apparent infringement of free speech. Separate issues, Ken.

[Kenngo1969]

Was addressing Av's claim of being "forced" to change religious views not the apparent infringement of free speech. Separate issues, Ken.

Such force may be covert and subtle, and the change it seeks may be incremental, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Granted, we're not going to go to sleep in a nation in which we have religious freedom one night, only to wake up the next morning to realize it has been taken away.  However, if forces such as those arrayed against the Kleins carry the day, we will reach the point where religious "freedom" will mean, "Sure, you can do and say most whatever you wish ... within the walls of your own church on your holy day."  Whatever the unpopularity of any given religious view, that's not what those who bequeathed the First Amendment to us intended.  

[Danzo]

 

 

The material I linked to earlier doesn't explicitly say that an appeal is in the works, but, given what the Kleins have said publicly, it would surprise me if it weren't.  It's interesting what you say about the scope of issues on appeal: generally, an appeal is limited to issues raised in the court or other adjudicative body below; perhaps the rules of evidence and procedure (assuming they even apply: in administrative hearings, often, they don't) are relaxed in this type of a proceeding.

 

 

Under Oregon law, it probably did.  (I don't have any special insight into, or expertise in, Oregon law, except that I believe the state has posted Border Guards along its eastern border in order to turn away anyone who even hints that he might be, to however small a degree, conservative .)  The debate will continue about the soundness of such laws and their aims, but as it stands now, it probably did.  And I agree with you about damages.  As I've said numerous times, you want to sue me for not baking a cake?  Fine; sue away.  But prove by the relevant evidentiary standard that your efforts to obtain a similar service at a similar price were unavailing, and your damages should be limited to what I would have charged you and what someone else did charge you, along with relevant expenses.  I'm not one who, necessarily, thinks that the entire concept of emotional harm should be done away with in law, but I also think that those who are prone to getting their widdo feewings hurt should probably grow a thicker skin.

 

Knowing Oregon Jurisprudence, I think that the verdict will be discrimination, but the damages will be reduced.  Brad, I think, was in his mind assessing a penalty, where as the law only calls for economic damages.  I think the economic damages are absurd.  In  no way was going somewhere else to bake a cake costing the couple $135,000.00.  

[Kenngo1969]

Knowing Oregon Jurisprudence, I think that the verdict will be discrimination, but the damages will be reduced.  Brad, I think, was in his mind assessing a penalty, where as the law only calls for economic damages.  I think the economic damages are absurd.  In no way was going somewhere else to bake a cake costing the couple $135,000.00. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]  

Ya think?  But, Danzo, what about their tender widdo feewings?!

 

[tonie]

Knowing Oregon Jurisprudence, I think that the verdict will be discrimination, but the damages will be reduced.  Brad, I think, was in his mind assessing a penalty, where as the law only calls for economic damages.  I think the economic damages are absurd.  In  no way was going somewhere else to bake a cake costing the couple $135,000.00.  

 

 

And just imagine if the couple got a cake for free.

 

Is "foreseeable" a genuine legal standard for emotional distress? My understanding is that emotional distress claim have to be shown to be intentional; that is, done with the intent to cause emotional distress.   What is most disappointing about the damage award is less about what the Bakers said and or did; but seems entirely based on "family members argued with the plaintiff", "3rd party individuals said not nice things".    Ithe damages need to be reduced to nearly zero.

Edited July 14, 2015 by tonie

[Kenngo1969]

Another conservative here.  . The Oregonian is usually pretty good at getting the facts out without too much opinion from the writers. It's the Statesman Journal that is very liberal. BTW, it is now legal in Oregon for 15-year-olds to have a sex change without parents permission or knowledge. How's that for Oregon?

I think the Oregon Legislature should move to add folks like you to the state's Endangered Species Act.  (Good luck! )

 

P.S.: Re: Sex changes - That's crazy.  At fifteen, if I had been considering such a decision, I didn't know nearly enough about who I was to be able to make it without adult input/veto power.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[TheSkepticChristian]

P.S.: "Where's your grammar, boy?"  "She's in the kitchen."

 

but is your Math, Science, and thinking better?

 

Edited July 14, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kenngo1969]

And just imagine if the couple got a cake for free.

 

Is "foreseeable" a genuine legal standard for emotional distress? My understanding is that emotional distress claim have to be shown to be intentional; that is, done with the intent to cause emotional distress.   What is most disappointing about the damage award is less about what the Bakers said and or did; but seems entirely based on "family members argued with the plaintiff", "3rd party individuals said not nice things".    Ithe damages need to be reduced to nearly zero.

 

And just imagine if the couple got a cake for free.

 

Is "foreseeable" a genuine legal standard for emotional distress? My understanding is that emotional distress claim have to be shown to be intentional; that is, done with the intent to cause emotional distress.   What is most disappointing about the damage award is less about what the Bakers said and or did; but seems entirely based on "family members argued with the plaintiff", "3rd party individuals said not nice things".    Ithe damages need to be reduced to nearly zero.

I gave you a rep point.  That's one of the most sensible things I've ever seen you say on this Board.  (Are you feelin' alright? )

[Kenngo1969]

but is your Math, Science, and thinking better?

 

It's just fine; thank you for asking.  I so appreciate your (no doubt genuine) concern!  (It's certainly better than your logic, questioning my reasoning skills while displaying someone holding a sign making a (ir)religious appeal.  That's what's known as a non sequitur.  Thanks fer playin'!

[TheSkepticChristian]

  I so appreciate your (no doubt genuine) concern! 

 

Thank you 

 

 

 That's what's known as a non sequitur.  Thanks fer playin'!

 

No, it's just that you guys keep talking about the same stuff: 1. Religious Freedom 2. Gay Marriage 3. Businesses.

 

What about poverty and religion? 

 

 

, questioning my reasoning skills

 

I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic about my grammar. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[tonie]

I gave you a rep point.  That's one of the most sensible things I've ever seen you say on this Board.  (Are you feelin' alright? )

 

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded..."   (no I did not order the code red)

 

I value the law and the Constitution and the attendant freedoms. I take my oath(s) to uphold it very seriously. I agree with Joseph Smith in having the most liberal of sentiments towards other regardless of belief.

 

God's law is God's law.

 

From a secular standpoint man's law governs us, and I try to follow "Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet."

Edited July 14, 2015 by tonie

[SmileyMcGee]

Such force may be covert and subtle, and the change it seeks may be incremental, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Granted, we're not going to go to sleep in a nation in which we have religious freedom one night, only to wake up the next morning to realize it has been taken away. However, if forces such as those arrayed against the Kleins carry the day, we will reach the point where religious "freedom" will mean, "Sure, you can do and say most whatever you wish ... within the walls of your own church on your holy day." Whatever the unpopularity of any given religious view, that's not what those who bequeathed the First Amendment to us intended.

I guess you and i have differing definitions of religious freedom. Also, even if you could prove the intent of those who drafted the first amendment (which I don't think you can) I couldn't care less what a few wealthy, 18th century land owners thought about religious freedom.

Edited July 14, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Kenngo1969]

I guess you and i have differing definitions of religious freedom. Also, even if you could prove the intent of those who drafted the first amendment (which I don't think you can) I couldn't care less what a few wealthy, 18th century land owners thought about religious freedom.

I think that's a potentially dangerous attitude, because it could result in the loss of one of the bedrock freedoms upon which the nation was founded without most people even being aware of what was lost, or how.  To each, his or her own.  In time, We'll see who's right.  The problem is that there's more at stake here than the wages of a casual bet.