Thanks! Good to know others recognize i dont waver on the truth.
Is it "persecution" when you go out of your way to make it happen?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Thanks! Good to know others recognize i dont waver on the truth.
OCTOBER23
New member
A bakery in Oregon ?????
--------------------------------
WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT ?
------------------------------------------------------
I thought that Store Owners had the Right under Freedom of Choice
to be able to refuse Service to Anyone they wanted to.
Is that not in the American Constitution ?
---------------------------------------------
First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.
The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.
--------------------------------
WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT ?
------------------------------------------------------
I thought that Store Owners had the Right under Freedom of Choice
to be able to refuse Service to Anyone they wanted to.
Is that not in the American Constitution ?
---------------------------------------------
First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.
The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.
Lon
Well-known member
Wishful thinking. The money was raised simply to 'help the family.'
:sigh: "YOU" asked if it was persecution.
"My" answer was "$135k IS persecution, yes."
Jose Fly
New member
This thread isn't about re-arguing the case. It's about them not paying the fine they, in part, solicited donations for.
Then why are you rearguing it and making claims that were not found to be the case and claiming part of the fine was for something they didnt do?
The entire fine was for refusing them the cake, period.
They never solicited money for the fines, they solicited for living expenses (because their business was lost) and legal fees.
They have said the entire time, they do not intend to pay that fine, they will fight it all the way up.
Jose Fly
New member
"Helping the family" and paying the fine are not mutually exclusive, especially since they directly cite having to pay the fine on their fundraising website.
No, I asked if it would be persecution if the state of Oregon puts liens on their property, as a result of the Kleins refusing to pay the fine that they raised more than enough money to pay.
Do you think they should be tossed in the street and their kids because they wouldnt bake a cake jose?
Jose Fly
New member
I didn't re-argue it, I recapped it after Huckleberry asked.
Their fundraising site directly mentions the fine as a reason to give them money.
No. I think they should pay the fine, given that they raised over 3 times the amount.
Post the claim that they are raising money to pay a fine. since they have always maintained they do not intend to pay it.
Id like to know when the laws changed that people could go after personal funds as a result of a closed business? They can only go after business funds, and there is no business anymore.
Ask al sharpton about that, he closes them all the time to avoid it.
Ask al sharpton about that, he closes them all the time to avoid it.
Lon
Well-known member
It means they can do with the funds as they like. "Helping" doesn't mean giving to pay the fines and most would applaud using it to make a determined stand in court. This is in litigation, not over. Of course they refuse to pay.
You are just being obstinate now. "How" they have to pay that fine matters not at all. Losing your bank account verses losing your house? Let's not get inane for obstinate's sake.
Whenever someone still retains the ancient tribal notions of persecution, they often feel persecuted and they often persecute back.
"If you go looking for the bad in a man, expecting to find it, you surely will."
--Abraham Lincoln
musterion
Well-known member
False as usual, no one would pay a fine when they are still litigating. Its not over.
They have no right to go after personal funds, because of a failed business, which is why people cant go after general motors, for things that happened pre- bankruptcy and the reorganization of the company or any closed buisness.
You nuts wanting them on the street doesnt mean you can take everything they have.
Jose Fly
New member
Funny how they didn't say that on their website, and instead directly cited having to pay the fine as a reason to donate. But that's just a coincidence, right?
Except their website doesn't say anything about using the money to keep the case in court. But it does cite the fine. Huh. :think:
And they should be prepared to face the consequences of that decision, correct? They have the money to pay it.
That doesn't make sense. They set up a funding website that specifically cites the fine as a reason to donate money. They raised over 3 times the amount of the fine. But now they're refusing to pay it.
Jose Fly
New member
Yes you do. And if you win later in court, you get that fine back, plus your legal fees. If you refuse to pay the fine, the government will take appropriate action to collect it.
It's hilarious how your tribalism won't even let you realize that basic fact.
Of course they do. The BOLI didn't fine "Sweetcakes by Melissa", they fined Aaron and Melissa Klein.
See above.
Or they could just use that half million dollars people gave them and pay the fine. Then they don't lose their house or anything else, and can argue their case further.