Posted on 07/03/2015 6:20:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yes, they didn’t “serve” the Couple. What a quaint idea.
If they collected the Money and didn’t “serve” them, I would expect to see them on Judge Judy.
Since the Bakery did not accept Payment for a product or service, they have no Business Relationship in the first place.
There was no Contract in place to Violate.
“Not only did Avakian levy a $135,000 judgment against the Kleins for “emotional damages” to the couple denied a wedding cake, he slapped a gag order on them that forbids the Kleins from explaining to potential customers of Sweet Cakes why they won’t bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.”
How does a politically-appointed non-judicial official get the power to impose a gag order?
What constitutional rights of the bakers are NOT being violated?
Plainly the “ruling” needs to be appealed as violating the First, Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments, as applied to the state by prevailing judicial interpretations of the Fourteenth.
Third Amendment. I don't think Avakian has found a way to quarter troops in their house, though I have a feeling he would if he could.
Had ENOUGH Yet ? ........................ Enforce the Bill of Rights ......... It’s the LAW !!!
RE: Plainly the “ruling” needs to be appealed as violating the First, Eighth and Thirteenth Amendments
It’s going to be a pretty hopeless endeavor with this Supreme Court that we have today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.