Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fine and a Gag Order

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fine and a Gag Order

    Looks like the 1st Amendment doesn't apply......

    Not only do they have to pay $135K but now they aren't allowed to talk about it:

    Avakian not only ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to the complaining lesbian couple, he also slapped a gag order on them, ordering them 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.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...te-gay-wedding
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    Looks like the 1st Amendment doesn't apply......

    Not only do they have to pay $135K but now they aren't allowed to talk about it:

    Avakian not only ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to the complaining lesbian couple, he also slapped a gag order on them, ordering them 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.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...te-gay-wedding
    yeah right $135k for "emotional damages" what a joke!

    I wish there was someplace I could go for a quick pay day, but since I am a straight white male that is unlikely.
    “Come and take it!"

    Comment


    • #3
      There is a way to end this. You just need some other "deviant" sexual couples (S & M, bestiality, etc.) to come forward wanting products from small businesses and put that in the courts. After all, these too are "sexual orientations" and apparently now protected by law.
      When the public sees that all sorts of "different" shall we say, sexual orientations are now open to forcing companies to bow to their demands there will be a backlash against the whole "sexual orientation" thing.

      Also, I'd still say that the companies involved should ask for / demand a public disclaimer on their products where they disagree with the statement being made by them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        There is a way to end this. You just need some other "deviant" sexual couples (S & M, bestiality, etc.) to come forward wanting products from small businesses and put that in the courts. After all, these too are "sexual orientations" and apparently now protected by law.
        No, they're not.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why aren't Judges ever tested for mental disorders?
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            No, they're not.
            At one time, the APA considered same-sex attraction a disorder. That policy ceased in response to a riot in the early 1970s. All things being equal, with enough of the right kids of PR and pressure, there's no reason why those other "orientations" can't be viewed more benignly, as well.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ForIAmSparticus View Post
              yeah right $135k for "emotional damages" what a joke!
              People sue for all types of BS reasons.....

              The big deal here is that the bakers have been ordered to not talk about it.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                People sue for all types of BS reasons.....

                The big deal here is that the bakers have been ordered to not talk about it.
                I am offended that I don't get my fair share, I am entitled to!
                “Come and take it!"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  There is a way to end this. You just need some other "deviant" sexual couples (S & M, bestiality, etc.) to come forward wanting products from small businesses and put that in the courts. After all, these too are "sexual orientations" and apparently now protected by law.
                  When the public sees that all sorts of "different" shall we say, sexual orientations are now open to forcing companies to bow to their demands there will be a backlash against the whole "sexual orientation" thing.

                  Also, I'd still say that the companies involved should ask for / demand a public disclaimer on their products where they disagree with the statement being made by them.
                  Yep. We've already had an issue along those lines.

                  I gotta say, if someone does not want to serve or sell you food, don't force the issue. I worked in the food service industry as a kid-you do not want pissed-off people handling your food.

                  There's a couple gays in our burg who should have heeded that simple logic.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    No, they're not.
                    What's the difference? They all are choices not something genetically pre-disposed or inherited.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      No, they're not.
                      If the 14th Amendment extends equal protection to practitioners of one specific sexual deviancy (homosexuality), on what legal or logical basis can you deny the same protections to practitioners of other sexual deviancies?
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        If the 14th Amendment extends equal protection to practitioners of one specific sexual deviancy (homosexuality), on what legal or logical basis can you deny the same protections to practitioners of other sexual deviancies?
                        He said S&M and bestiality were sexual orientations, which they are not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          What's the difference?
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

                          Please read the second paragraph.

                          They all are choices not something genetically pre-disposed or inherited.
                          Your evidence for this?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            What's the difference? They all are choices not something genetically pre-disposed or inherited.
                            Pretty much.

                            Originally posted by The Doctor
                            If the 14th Amendment extends equal protection to practitioners of one specific sexual deviancy (homosexuality), on what legal or logical basis can you deny the same protections to practitioners of other sexual deviancies?
                            Pedophiles are moving in this direction. There's a case out West that is going to try that defense.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                              Why aren't Judges ever tested for mental disorders?
                              Technically, he isn't a "Judge". He is a "Commissioner" that was appointed to a regulatory commission.

                              If Oregon law is anything like Illinois law, the defendants have the right to appeal the decision and the stupid gag order to the local court.

                              I cannot imagine a competent judge affirming the gag order.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X