Posted on 07/08/2015 4:46:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On July 2, Brad Avakian, commissioner of Oregons Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $135,000 in damages for emotional, mental and physical suffering to a lesbian couple after the Kleins owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa declined to bake a cake celebrating their same-sex wedding. Avakian also ordered the Kleins 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.
This gag order explicitly applied not just to formal business communications but also to the Kleins statements to the press, such as, This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong. (While the order itself is extraordinarily broad and explicitly targets the Kleins public comments about their case, BOLI has since put out a contradictory statement to Media Matters that the Kleins can still talk about the case and their opposition to Oregon anti-discrimination laws.)
While this ruling has binding legal force, it is critical to understand that it is not the result of a conventional court proceeding. Rather, it is the product of an administrative process that is unrecognizable to those schooled in the rules and procedures of criminal and civil courts. It is a process that is rife with conflicts of interest, ideological from the start, and often insulated from conventional and appropriate judicial review.
In states across the country, discrimination complaints against businesses like the Kleins originate not in court but instead in state agencies like BOLI or in various state human rights commissions. The agencies and commissions are often led by explicitly ideological politicians who make no pretense of impartiality, instead openly declaring that theyll aggressively find and punish discrimination wherever its found. Discrimination complaints are then investigated by agency investigators, tried by agency prosecutors, and decided by agency judges often interpreting and applying rules drafted by the agency itself. Americans have long recognized the inherent bias when one person functions as judge, jury, and executioner. In the administrative agencies of the deep state, a single, highly ideological entity can function as rulemaker, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, and enforcer.
The Kleins case is no exception. BOLI investigators made an initial finding of substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination and ultimately handed the case over to the BOLI prosecutor, who tried the case in front of a BOLI administrative law judge in a proceeding that the Kleins attorney, Herbert Grey, described as featuring minimal rules of evidence and only the barest protections against hearsay.
The informal nature of the proceedings means that standard judicial ethics and conflict-of-interest rules dont apply. For example, Commissioner Avakian committed an act that would typically disqualify judges in civil or criminal proceedings by publicly commenting on the Kleins case before it came before him. On February 5, 2013, he posted a link to a story of a bakery providing a free wedding cake to the complaining lesbian couple and declared, Everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, but that doesnt mean they can disobey laws already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody assures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives. The Oregon Department of Justice is looking into a complaint that a Gresham bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. It started when a mother and daughter showed up at Sweet Cakes by Melissa looking for a wedding cake.
Avakian speaks as a politician while exercising the power of a judge.
In fact, Avakians comments ranged far and wide in public statements and in e-mails to LGBT organizations not only firmly declaring his progressive beliefs but applauding same-sex marriage and LGBT causes more generally. Despite his role as a judge, he also functioned fully as a politician, demonstrating his bias clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly. Politicians are expected to express their political point of view, including their views of pending cases. Judges, however, have a different obligation. Avakian speaks as a politician while exercising the power of a judge.
While litigants typically have a right to appeal agency rulings to real courts, these appeals not only come at the end of an exhausting, expensive, and often years-long administrative process, theyre often extraordinarily limited. In Oregon, for example, according to the Kleins counsel, courts are required to grant considerable discretion to BOLIs ruling, setting aside its legal conclusions only if theyre clearly erroneous. Yet even when courts review agency determinations de novo (granting them no legal or factual preference), administrative proceedings can powerfully shape public opinion and drain a litigants financial resources.
The Kleins case represents the deep state in action, working through administrative agencies the public dimly understands. Core constitutional liberties are adjudicated by bureaucrats who possess minimal constitutional expertise yet operate under clear political and ideological mandates. In such a circumstance, the question isnt whether litigants like the Kleins will prevail, but whether they ever had a chance.
David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.
No because there is not enough mass outrage shown in that state from fellow Christians.
Just watch how it's done had it happened to a Muslim baker...
That is why it is best for them to leave that state.
An outrage.
RE: That is why it is best for them to leave that state.
There are not many states to move to then (except maybe Texas ). New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, etc. you name it... there are lawsuits against Christian photographers, florists and lodge owners by gay couples.
And now with the whole thing federalized by 5 justices and an unsympathetic White House, I don’t think there’s anywhere else to move to....
The only solution as I see it is for devout Christians to show UNITY. STAND AND FIGHT.
But where is this unity?
There is no equivalent of a NAACP or CAIR at all...
I still say move because there will be less hostle issues. I stand on my position.
there is no Christian organization
all have been co opted by the left
Yes they do, because, according to the article, the BOLI group has no power of law.
If I were the Klein’s, I would ignore the BOLI blathering and talk freely.
Look at the platform they’ve been given. Imagine the joy the disciples and the Apostle Paul would have written about if they had been given a chance to be on national television and share the gospel of Christ.
Have doctors in OR been forced to perform abortions against their religious beliefs?
And, since, per the article, the BOLI group has no power of law, I also would move (to Texas).
David French is one of my favorite columnists now.
Oregon Constitution
Article I - Bill of Rights
Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
Oregon, on of the left coast
All things are possible with God.
I’d do the same. If they come after me I hooked it’s a violation of my first amendment rights.
Just as liberal professors now find themselves under attack by their students for perceived microagression, so too will bureaucracies soon find themselves defending themselves against discrimination.
This POS bureaucrat should himself be charged with substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination against Christians, depriving the couple of their civil rights and violating the 1st, 7th and 8th Amendments.
Next, there has to be more Bundy Ranch showdowns. Peaceful, of course. Let the bureaucracy try to enforce their ruling.
But running away, no! Where could you run to?
While judges act with the power of both judge and politician. The implicit, "It would be more fairer before a judge," is not true.
This is an open-and-shut Federal constitutional case, and, if appealed, I expect them to win easily.
If I were them I would cash out every thing I owned pile all the money in a big pile and publicly burn it, then go sign up for welfare, before I let those dykes or the court ever see one red cent...(maybe not the most Christian sentiment, but heck I’m a backslid baptist...)
This DEFINITELY deserves repeating:
“All things are possible with God.”
And he could there do no mighty work. . . because of their unbelief (Mk. 6:5-6).
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.