Catholic School Forced To Hire Someone With A Same Sex "Wedding"

Coming to a Yeshiva near you!

read the court's decision

Judge Rules Against Catholic School in Gay-Hiring Retraction

• By DENISE LAVOIE, AP LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER
 

BOSTON — Dec 17, 2015, 2:25 PM ET

An all-girls Catholic prep school in Massachusetts violated state anti-discrimination law by rescinding a job offer to a man in a same-sex "marriage", a judge ruled.

Matthew Barrett was offered a job as Fontbonne Academy's food services director in 2013, but the offer was withdrawn days later after he listed his husband as his emergency contact.

Barrett sued, alleging that the Milton school discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and gender. Norfolk Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins agreed, rejecting Fontbonne's claim that hiring Barrett would infringe on its constitutional rights because it views his marriage to a man as incompatible with its religious mission.

The judge said Barrett's duties as a food services director did not include presenting the teachings of the Catholic church.

"As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its mission and message. It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesman for Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex "marriage"," Wilkins wrote in a ruling issued Wednesday.

The judge also found that a religious exemption to the state anti-discrimination law applies only if a religious organization limits admission to people of a certain religion. Fontbonne is open to students and employees of all faiths, with the exception of its administration and theology faculty.

It was not immediately clear if Fontbonne plans to appeal the ruling. In a statement, the school said it is considering its options.

Fontbonne's attorney, John Bagley, did not immediately respond to a phone message and email seeking comment.

Barrett's attorney, Ben Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the judge has found that Fontbonne is liable to pay damages to Barrett for lost wages and compensatory damages for discrimination. A hearing has not yet been scheduled.

""Marriage" "equality" has been the law of Massachusetts for over a decade and it is now the law of the land. But you can't have equality if you can get "married" on Saturday and fired on Monday," Klein said.

Since the legalization of gay "marriage", there have been cases around the country of Catholic institutions firing employees in same-sex "marriages".

In June, the director of religious education at a Catholic elementary school outside Philadelphia was fired after two parents complained about her "marriage" to another woman. Margie Winters said she had told administrators at the school about her "marriage" when she was hired in 2007. The school's principal said in a letter to parents that the school must comply with Catholic philosophy.

In August, a Catholic college preparatory school in Macon, Georgia, settled a discrimination lawsuit filed by a music teacher who said he was fired in 2014 because of his plans to marry his partner.
(abcnews)

Barrett’s lawyer, Ben Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the decision marks the first time a judge has rejected a religious organization’s assertion that it had a constitutional right not to hire employees because they were spouses in same-sex "marriages".

Several legal experts contacted Thursday by the Globe said they believed the ruling was the first in a legal dispute involving a religious organization and an employee in a same-sex "marriage".

“It is the first reported case with regards to a religious institution,” said Brian D. Spitz, an employment lawyer in Ohio whose firm represents clients from the LGBTQ community.

In his ruling, Judge Douglas H. Wilkins rejected the three defenses the school offered.

“Fontbonne’s discrimination ‘because of’ Barrett’s same-sex "marriage" is undisputed and, as shown above, amounts to discriminatory intent as a matter of law,” Wilkins wrote.

“It is clear that, because he is male, he suffered gender discrimination when he was denied employment for "marrying" a person whom a female could have married without suffering the same consequences.”

Fontbonne, a ministry sponsored by the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston, had argued it is entitled to a religious exemption under the state antidiscrimination law.

It also claimed that hiring Barrett would infringe on its constitutional rights because it views his marriage as incompatible with its religious mission.

Wilkins rejected those arguments.

“As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its mission and message,” he wrote. “It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesperson for Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex "marriage".”

Wilkins said Fontbonne could claim a religious exemption to the state antidiscrimination law only if it limited “membership, enrollment, or participation” to members of one religion. The school, however, is open to students and employees of all faiths, except for members of its administration, theology faculty, and mission and ministry staff, he wrote.  so if a Yeshiva has a non Jewish janitor, it can be forced to hire someone with a same sex "wedding"

In a statement, Fontbonne said Thursday that it is considering its options.

(boston globe) highlights are our additions

The Hypocrisy That No One Reported

Gavin Newom today

However back in '04 Gavin Newom Broke California law starting the same sex "marriage" craze that destroyed the country



From a 04 article in the San Francisco Chronicle

It was only his 12th day as mayor of San Francisco, but Gavin Newsom decided that night -- the very night he attended President Bush's State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. -- that he was going to defy California law.

And turn the nation on its ear.

Attending the president's Jan. 20 speech as a guest of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Newsom listened closely as Bush voiced his strong support for outlawing same-sex "marriage" -- with a constitutional amendment, if necessary.

Not long after the speech, Newsom called his chief of staff, Steve Kawa, a gay man who was at home with his partner and their two children. "He told me that he wanted to do something," Kawa said.

Two weeks later, during a staff meeting, Newsom dropped the bombshell on his top aides: He wanted them to explore how the city could start issuing "marriage" licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Kawa said the mayor asked staff to gather as many legal briefs, news articles and other background information as they could. Added his communications chief, Peter Ragone, "He also wanted it done quietly."

Within 24 hours, Kawa was on the phone with Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a San Francisco-based public interest legal organization.

Her reaction: "Oh, my God, you're kidding me," Kendell said in an interview Saturday. "It was a mixture of 'wow,' and 'oh s -- .' "

It was the first time, Kendell said, that a mayor of an American city wanted to take such an initiative. And Newsom, a straight Irish Catholic man married for two years, was the perfect politician to take on the fight, she said.

That weekend, Feb. 7-8, Kendell got on the phone with other gay rights leaders and lawyers to feel them out. She particularly wanted to gauge the response in Massachusetts, where a political showdown was looming over the same-sex "marriage" debate after the high court there ruled that limiting marriage rights to heterosexuals was unlawful discrimination.

"Would we be doing anything to hurt them? What would the ripple effects be," Kendell said. She had the same sort of questions with colleagues in Washington, D.C., where Congress is considering a constitutional amendment to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying.

"There wasn't unanimity that this was the right time," she said.

Last Monday, first thing in the morning, Kendell, Kawa, the mayor's policy director, Joyce Newstat, ACLU attorney Tamara Lange, Geoffrey Kors of the gay rights advocacy group Equality California and a handful of other top staffers in the mayor's administration met behind closed doors in a ceremonial room in the mayor's suite at City Hall.

"We talked about the legal issues. We talked about the politics," Ragone said.

"A lot of us started to personalize the issue, our own stories started coming out," said Kawa, who said he has had three life wishes: to have a family, to be an out gay man in public service and to get "married".

The group also started talking details. The California Family Code states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

They decided to proceed on the grounds that denying "marriage" licenses to gays and lesbians violates their rights to equal protection under the California Constitution. They looked at the marriage license documents and determined that they would need to make the language gender neutral. Words and phrases such as "bride" and "groom" and "unmarried man" and "unmarried woman" would have to be changed.

There was also talk about which couple they should ask to be the first to tie the knot. Kendell suggested Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, lesbian rights pioneers who celebrated their 51st anniversary on Valentine's Day.

After the meeting, Newsom's aides walked down the wood-paneled corridor to his office and briefed him on the possibilities. That afternoon, they contacted the city attorney's office and asked for help.

Then they started giving key people the heads up.

They called the offices of Pelosi and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. They alerted Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the city's two gay supervisors, Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty, and national Democrat Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Newsom. The veteran gay representative told the mayor to drop the idea -- the time wasn't right.

Late Tuesday afternoon, the administration released a letter that the mayor had sent to the county clerk's office, which issues marriage licenses. It requested that San Francisco try to find a way to not discriminate against gay and lesbian couples wanting to get "married".

By Wednesday morning, Newsom was surrounded by TV, print and radio reporters while he was providing lunch to seniors in Japantown. He announced that he wanted to move quickly on the same-sex "marriage" issue, but wouldn't say when.

That afternoon, Kendell, from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, put in a call to Lyon, 79, and Martin, 83, asking whether they wanted to get "married". The answer came back 10 minutes later: "Yes."

Newsom held a staff meeting Wednesday night. By 10 p.m., the decision was finalized to issue the first licenses to same-sex couples Thursday.

On Thursday morning, Lyon, dressed in a blue pants suit, and Martin, in a purple one, slipped quietly into City Hall. So did Kendell and Roberta Achtenberg, who was a civil rights attorney before she served on the Board of Supervisors and later joined the Chamber of Commerce as a senior vice president.

Few others knew what was about to take place inside the assessor's office. Debra Chasnoff, the Academy Award-winning documentarian, was invited to film the ceremony, and two Chronicle staffers were allowed to witness it. In all, about 20 people were on hand, including mayoral aides, selected civil rights attorneys and two other couples preparing to take their vows after Lyon and Martin. Newsom steered clear.

He asked City Assessor/Recorder Mabel Teng, who oversees the clerk's office, to officiate. But first she had to be deputized to perform a "marriage".

Martin and Lyon had trouble filling out the forms because they couldn't remember the required personal information about their parents. Martin, long ago married, was pushed when asked to recall when she got a divorce. Kendell paid the $82 filing fee. The couple borrowed two rings, and at precisely 11:06 a.m., the ceremony began.

Those who orchestrated the scene succeeded in keeping it secret, a goal all along to keep opponents of same-sex "marriage" from trying to prevent the ceremony from taking place.

By Friday afternoon, as scores of same-sex "weddings" were being performed, opposition lawyers were in court trying to get an emergency injunction to stop what they termed municipal anarchy. The judge told them to come back Tuesday, when the legal battle will begin in earnest.

Kendell said she was stunned by the magnitude of what Newsom unleashed.

"I feel the weight of history, in a way that I never felt before," she said. "It is remarkable and profound."

As for Newsom, who came into office as a moderate, he credits George Bush for what happened.

"I was at the State of the Union," he said, "and I felt a real resolve on this issue."

Rainbow Buses Coming to A City Near You! Object At Your Own Peril

The annual Calgary Pride Festival kicks off this Friday and, as a show of support, a Calgary Transit bus has been wrapped in a symbol of inclusiveness, but at least one driver does not want to be at its helm.

The rainbow flag bus will operate through September 7, the day of the Calgary Pride Parade. The bus will not have a constant, designated route and will be rotated between a number of routes situated throughout the city.

Calgary Transit will announce the rainbow bus’s scheduled routes each day on the Calgary Transit website and on Twitter.

The $9,000 cost of the bus wrap was paid for by Pattison Signs.

Calgary Pride's director of govenment affairs, Craig Sklenar, says the bus is a symbol of progress.

'It's a sign of the change in Calgary," said Sklenar.  "There's still much to do cause it NEVER enough in as much as LGBTQ rights are concerned  but we are excited there is  such public displays of pride across the city over the next few weeks."

Not everyone is a fan of the temporary Pride-friendly addition to the Calgary Transit fleet.

“I’m concerned that if I say that this bus is against my beliefs that I might not have a job,” said Jesse Rau, who has worked for Calgary Transit as a driver for about a year. “I’m a Christian so, as a Christian, there are things like homosexuality that I just can’t condone. Unfortunately, we live in a culture where if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, the accusation is that you hate the person.”

If assigned to drive the rainbow bus, Rau says he will face a dilemma.

“I would be very respectful with dispatch,” said Rau. “There are some very amazing, respectable people that work for the City of Calgary.”

“I would go up to them very respectably and say can you please assign me another bus. I wouldn’t throw a fit or protest or get angry.”

Rau says that while the bus looks beautiful but it is clearly promoting the homosexual movement that he does not want to be aligned with.

“I have a family to support and I am very concerned about losing the job, it’s something I’m very proud to be a part of, but when it goes against the most important things I stand for, or if I’m asked to compromise in such a big way for what I believe to be right, then I have to lose my job.”

“I’m put in a corner.”

Rau hopes Calgary Transit and the Amalgamated Transit Union will support the requests of drivers who do not wish to drive the rainbow bus.

(calgary news) highlights our additions

Rainbow Bus on Rainbow Cross walk

A Calgary man says he will quit his job if he's assigned to drive a bus wrapped in a rainbow flag.

For the annual Calgary Pride Festival, which starts today, a Calgary Transit bus has been wrapped in the symbol of inclusiveness.

• City's first pride bus set to roll through Calgary streets

The rainbow flag bus will operate through Sept. 7, the day the Pride Parade is being held.

Jesse Rau, who has worked for Calgary Transit as a driver for about a year, said he's a Christian and can't support homosexuality.

Rau hopes Calgary Transit and the Amalgamated Transit Union will support drivers who don't want to drive the rainbow bus.

Doug Morgan, director of Calgary Transit, said drivers can only refuse to work based on safety issues.

"What we would do is open a dialogue with them and chat with them and ask them about their issues and making sure we're being sensitive to their beliefs, but overall the service has to go out and we would ask them to drive the bus," Morgan said.

He was blackmailed in a 'nice' — politically correct 'nice' — way [to not] talk to the media."- Pastor Artur Pawlowski

Rau said he hopes he would be assigned to another bus.

"I have a family to support and I am very concerned about losing the job ... but when it goes against the most important things I stand for, or if I'm asked to compromise in such a big way for what I believe to be right, then I have to lose my job," Rau said.

Not a simple case, says lawyer

Labour Lawyer Tom Ross said the case is not a simple one.

"There are human rights obligations on the employer to accommodate religious beliefs within the workplace," Ross said.

But he adds it doesn't appear Rau can make the argument that simply driving the pride bus would imply support for any belief or lifestyle. 

Meanwhile, Rau has declined to make any further comments to the media.

Artur Pawlowski, Rau's pastor, said he's afraid of losing his job after his story went viral and his employers put a gag order on him.

"He was blackmailed in a 'nice' — politically correct 'nice' — way [to not] talk to the media," said Pawlowski, who heads Street Church, a controversial ministry that feeds the homeless and stages provocative protests.

Despite the controversy, Calgary Pride's director of government affairs, Craig Sklenar, said the bus is a symbol of progress.

"It's a sign of the change in Calgary," said Sklenar. "There's still much to do in as much as LGBTQ rights are concerned, but we are excited there is such public displays of pride across the city over the next few weeks."

(cbc)

Ami Magazine Editor "Masers" on Rabbi To District Attorney Because He Opposed Ami's Stance On Same Sex "Marriage"

Last night Yitzchok Frankfurter (Ami's editor) admitted on the Just Enough Heshy radio show that he reported a specific Rabbi in Lakewood to the District Attorney's office for threatening him. 

After a thorough investigation, the only correspondence that the Rabbi had with Ami Magazine was the following email.  That email contained the "threat" to Frankfurter.  

The only "threat" was that he will show his editorial to key rabbis in Lakewood, (which can be seen in the following letter).  

After Mr. Frankfurter admitted to massering on the Lakewood Rabbi, Mr. Frankfurter had the gall to say in an attempt to paint us as terrorists (read the comments clearly written by Ami to our first editorial) "You know what the problem I was actually trying to prevent him from getting involved in craziness, cause I see we're he's leading, these guys are going totally off".  

Then he has the complete hypocrisy to defend himself by saying about our accusations that "those types of accusations our the worst"  (This got cut off on the tape but can be seen at the tail end of the video on the bottom)

"Threatening" letter

"Rabbi" Yitzchok Frankfurter please answer us a few questions?  (we now know you read this blog)
What is the heter to masser on a Jew for following the Torah?
Is going to rabbis with your own editorial a real threat?
Did you go to a rabbi to get a heter to go to the DA?
If so which Rabbi?
Did you show them the "threatening letter"?

Can I also go to the directly to the DA when someone is molesting a child?

How about the police?
Will you devote a editorial to hilchos mesira showing your heter to go to the DA?



In response to Ami's critique we changed the name of our original anti-Ami editorial from

"Ami Magazine "Paskens" It's A Chiyuv To Support Same Sex "Marriage""

 to 

"Ami Magazine "Paskens" It's Assur To Oppose Same Sex "Marriage""

The worst part about Ami is they are like a chazer they pretend to be kosher by saying they are against same sex "marriage", but then they clarify it with treyfus (I forgot, I was supposed to be literal) make that, the ability to regurgitate, by saying things like it's assur to fight against it, and we shouldn't be upset because we lost nothing.

Remember, subscribers and advertisers will force Ami Magazine to stop its perversion!

Will Be'ezras Hashem put up editorial on whole interview tomorrow

After Losing Their Business For Refusing To Host Same "Weddings Odgaard's Plan To Put Up 1,000 Anti-Gay "Marriage" Billboards

"The animated responses of a number of Orthodox commentators to the Supreme Court ruling reveal that the contemporary exilic consciousness in America, which does not share features of the old paradigm such as persecution, exclusion and alienation, is slowly starting to fade even among the devout. This repudiation of the exile mentality permeates the ferocious verbal attacks against our host country."
"Ami Magazine"

Billboard however are way to little and way to late, but at least their doing something.

GRIMES, Iowa — After months of controversy, the Gortz Haus closed its doors last week in the wake of declining revenue — first, for its refusal to host gay "weddings", then for discontinuing its wedding business altogether.

Though the Grimes bistro, art gallery and venue is no longer open, owners Richard and Betty Odgaard have no plans to put aside their religious campaign against same-sex "marriage".

On the Facebook page for their ministry, God's Original Design Ministry, the Odgaards say they plan to erect 1,000 billboards advertising their belief in upholding "traditional" marriage between one man and one woman.

The first billboard, a 14-foot by 48-foot black-and-white sign, went up outside of Durant, Okla., in late July. On Facebook, the group said the billboard was "funded 100 percent by your generous donations."

"One down and 999 to go for 1,000 points of light," the post read. "Thank you and God bless!"

Betty Odgaard declined an interview request. But she did stress that the billboard effort is not a campaign against the gay community.

"It certainly isn't coming from a hateful place," Odgaard said. "What I'm most frustrated with is that it's viewed as being hateful. And that's the last thing that I want to convey. It's just that we want to hold up the Biblical view of marriage."

A Des Moines couple filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in 2013 because the Odgaards' refused to let them rent the venue for a same-sex ceremony. In a settlement last year, the Odgaards agreed to pay the couple $5,000 and to not discriminate against same-sex couples.

They did that by choosing not to offer wedding services to anyone — straight or gay — a decision the Odgaards said caused the business to fold.

The Odgaards were heralded by social conservatives who applauded them for sticking to their religious beliefs over business concerns. They were represented by attorneys through the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a group that litigates nationwide "to protect the free expression of all faiths," according to its mission statement.

And they've become a favorite talking point of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is campaigning for the Republican nomination for president.

Cruz, who previously blamed "liberal fascism" for the demise of the Gortz Haus, will hold a "Rally for Religious Liberty" Aug. 21 featuring the Odgaards.

The couple is also slated to speak at November's National Religious Liberties Conference in Des Moines. That organization's website describes widespread religious persecution: "With an increasingly aggressive leftist minority rising, now is the time to bring religious liberties, parental rights, and freedom from big government to the forefront of consideration in national politics."

Donna Red Wing, executive director of LGBT advocacy group One Iowa, said the couple seems to have the backing of influential and well-funded people.

"Clearly, Dick and Betty Odgaard are now a poster couple for the evangelical right," she said. "I think that they have been encouraged to go in this direction. I'm sure there will be funding to help them reach their goal of hundreds if not thousands of signs."

The billboards may spark discussion about religious liberties, but will otherwise have little effect, Red Wing said. Iowa legalized same-sex marriages in 2009 and in June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld marriage as a constitutional right for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

"I don't think their highway signs are going to change the law," Red Wing said. "The Supreme Court's ruling is the law of the land, and a few or a thousand highway signs is not going to change that."

(usa today)

Gay Terrorists Stop GoFundMe Fundraiser For Bakery That Refused To Bake a Gay "Wedding" Cake

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Saturday, April 25, 2015


A crowdfunding campaign that raised more than $109,000 for the Christian-owned bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon was removed Saturday after complaints from gay rights advocates.

The website GoFundMe said in a statement that the page was yanked because the campaign violated the policy against raising money “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”

“The campaign entitled ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa‘ involves formal charges. As such, our team has determined that it was in violation of GoFundMe’s Terms & Conditions,” GoFundMe said in an email statement.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries proposed a damages award Friday of $135,000 against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, after they were found in violation of the state’s anti-discrimination law in February.

The family will receive the money that was raised before the site was yanked, according to GoFundMe. In addition, Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian relief group headed by the Rev. Franklin Graham, launched a fundraising drive Friday to help the Kleins pay the damages award.

“Please pray for Aaron and Melissa, and pray for our nation. When our judges are punishing Christians for practicing what they believe, that’s persecution, plain and simple,” Mr. Graham said in a statement on the website.

The Kleins declined to provide a wedding cake in 2013 for a same-sex marriage ceremony. The award, which is not final, would provide $60,000 in "damages" to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in "damages" to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful "discrimination".”

The crowdfunding campaign launched shortly after the award was announced Friday afternoon by Mark Kost. The site collected more than $109,000 in less than eight hours.

But critics of the couple, led by Oregon baker Lisa Watson, said on Facebook that they urged GoFundMe to remove the crowdfunding page.

“Watson’s own post on Facebook stated, ‘this business has been found GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION and is being allowed to fundraise to pay their penalty. The gofundme terms of service address hate speech, bigotry, criminal activity, and sexism among other things in their campaign. … The amount of money they have raised in a matter of a few hours by thousands of anonymous cowards is disgusting,’” the website GoLocalPDX reported in a Saturday post.

In a Saturday post on her Facebook page, Ms. Watson said, “I can’t believe we just did that,” while Brent J. Blackwell commented, “I complained three times and got my family in on it too.”  

The GoFundMe crowdfunding site was used earlier this month to raise more than $842,000 for Memories Pizza owners Crystal and Kevin O’Connor, who said they would not cater a hypothetical same-sex "wedding", but the money raised was to support their business and family, not to pay a court award.

“In the case of ‘Memories Pizza,’ no formal charges were involved, thus the campaign was not removed,” said the GoFundMe statement.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa has since closed its doors, although the Kleins are still providing baked goods from their home. The Kleins, who have five children, have said they are struggling to make ends meet.

“It’s very discouraging. This is not money coming from a business, this is not money coming from an insurance fund, this is money coming straight from our bank account,” Mr. Klein told the Family Research Council’s Craig James in a radio interview Friday.

The Daily Signal reported that the $135,000 damages awarded included payments for a host of physical, emotional and mental ailments listed by the lesbian couple, including “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”  these clearly false ailments are proof these 2 lesbians are lying, these low lives are just terrorists and should be treated as such.  

(washington times) highlights our additions

 The final decision about how much the Kleins have to pay will be made by Oregon State Commissioner Brad Avakian. He is expected to review the case later this year, and could raise the amount owed.

(CNN)

Court Could Force Bakery To Pay $150,000+ For Refusing To Make Same Sex "Wedding" Cake

A hearing in March will determine the amount of damages Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman (now Bowman-Cryer) receive. The married couple are seeking $75,000 each for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering,” along with reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses,according to the Bureau of Labor and Industries report.

Oregon bakery will have to pay lesbian couple up to $150,000 plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for refusing to make "wedding" cake for a same sex "Wedding" based on their religion

This can cost these 2 bakers more than $150,000 (court decision)

A lesbian couple filed a discrimination suit against the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham when the owners refused to make them a wedding cake, citing their obvious religious beliefs. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries determined on Monday that the bakers "discriminated" against the couple showing once again that gay "rights" trump religious rights.

from the summary of the court decision, worthy of impeaching him

An Oregon bakery will have to pay a gay "couple" up to $150,000 plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for refusing to violate their religion and bake them a "wedding" cake two years ago, government officials announced Monday.

The Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham caught heat in January 2013 when Laurel Bowman said the shop refused to make a cake for her and her fiancée, citing religious objections. Bowman said the co-owner, Aaron Klein, called the gay marriage “an abomination unto the lord,” KGW reported.

Bowman filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries months later, and the group said on Monday last week it was ruling against the bakery.

Now the bakers could pay up to $75,000 each to Bowman and her "fiancée", with the final amount to be determined in March .

The Bureau of Labor said in a statement that it provides some exemptions in such cases for religious groups, but the bakery didn’t count as one just because of its owners’ beliefs because only organizations have religious rights (for now in a few years they may loose them)

court decision only protects religious institutions

Very important section to understand why this happened
When gay rights laws around the country were designed many religious "leaders" only put in religious exemptions for themselves while allowing private citizens to suffer the consequences.  Back in June '11 when NY State was trying to pass same sex "marriage", instead of Agudas Yisroel lobbying senators to stop the "marriage" bill,  (I was told by an Orthodox Jew who was lobbing in Albany against the bill the 2 weeks before it passed that he didn't see a single person from any of the mainstream organizations his whole time there, He also said that Shmuel Lefkowitz told him that he wasn't lobbying to hard against the bill because he though it was going to pass) Aguda met with Governor Andrew Cuomo (this was confirmed by Chaim Dovid Zweibel) in order to put in protections for religious organizations helping this evil bill pass.   After the "marriage" bill came out the "Orthodox" Union released this insane statement (which I'm sure Agudah agrees with though can't state for political reasons)

Consistent with our tradition and Jewish religious principles, we oppose the redefinition of marriage and the state sanction of same sex marriages. We opposed this legislation and believe it is a mistake to enact it in New York. We do note however that the legislation, as enacted, includes robust protections of religious liberties for organizations including synagogues, schools and social service agencies. For that at least, we are grateful. Just as we, in a democratic, pluralistic society do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others, same sex marriage, now the law in New York, must not infringe on anyone’s religious liberties. Sadly, in too many states, those acting on their religious beliefs have seen government benefits withheld, government funds, contracts and services denied and privileges such as tax exemptions revoked. New York’s law ensures that will not happen here and employers, social service providers and houses of worship are free to uphold their faith.
We are particularly thankful to the well meaning and passionate advocates on both sides of this issue who recognized the need for such far reaching exemptions. In particular, we thank Governor Cuomo, a staunch supporter of the bill and Senate Majority Leader Skelos, a firm opponent, who worked together to find common ground here. As well, we are grateful to Speaker Silver for agreeing to take up the legislation a second time in the Assembly to ensure these protections were in the final legislation. (OU press) 

If the NY "Marriage" bill was never taken up a second time it would never have passed (both the senate and the assembly have to pass the same version of the bill and the senate would not pass the assembly's version).  The bill passed the senate by 2 votes and those religious organization exemptions  that agudah fought for were critical to those 2 senators voting for the bill.  (even the New York Times admitted that) it's very likely that if no religious organization (Jewish (Agudah) or Christian) praised the religious exemptions the bill would have failed

Yet we found that those religious exemptions were worthless for individuals like religious farm owners in upstate New York who declined a lesbian couple’s request to hold a "wedding" ceremony on their property have been fined $10,000 and ordered to pay the women $1,500 each.

The bakery shut its doors at the end of 2013 , but the owners continued doing private orders, including one for an anti-gay ministry this is where the daily news put in irrelevant information to make sure that people side with the lesbians . It also continued running a Facebook page under the Sweet Cakes name.




It posted a statement on the page Tuesday: “Even though it seems as if we are being thrown into the Lions den. We will continue to stand for the Lord, our faith will not waiver. We fully trust in our heavenly father. He is able to deliver us from this, but even if He doesn't we are not going to compromise on God's truth in order to appease man.” how come Agudah can't say such a statement

The statement has received more than 3,000 likes. now at 4000

If you have facebook (click this) press like the statement

Last year, the Civil Rights Commission in Colorado ordered a baker to fulfill an order he refused to a same-sex couple. Another baker in Colorado is now being investigated for discrimination after she refused to write anti-gay messages on a customer’s cake.
The person in Colorado had this to say in response to these gay terrorists 

You know, [I’ll serve jail time if] that’s what it takes.  It’s not like I have chosen this team or that team. This is who I am, it’s what I believe.”

(Daily News) highlights our additions

A hearing in March will determine the amount of damages Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman (now Bowman-Cryer) receive. The "married" couple are seeking $75,000 each for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering,” along with reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses,according to the Bureau of Labor and Industries report.

take part

The Kleins shut down their storefront later in 2013 due to the media attention from the case and what Aaron Klein described as a backlash from gay activists. At one point, someone even vandalized their bakery truck. Melissa Klein still bakes cakes from her home for friends.

Harmon, the attorney, said the case’s key element is that Melissa Klein was sculpting customized wedding cakes intended to celebrate specific ceremonies. “We’re not just talking about a bakery where you’re stirring together flour and water and sugar and handing somebody a cupcake,” she said. “She’s creating art. She’s designing things for an event.”

No Americans should have to choose between closing their business and following their religious convictions, Harmon said.

(world mag)

"First Amendment, Constitution. Freedom of religion. I'm free to exercise my religion however I see fit," Aaron Klein said. "If I'm told to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, I feel that I'm violating my beliefs. I don't think I should have to do that."

(CBN.com)

Public backlash caused the bakery closing its doors at the end of 2013 to turn into an ‘in home bakery’, but not without leaving a note reading ‘This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong. Your Religious Freedom is becoming not Free anymore‘, according to reports.
(gay star news)



The owners of an Oregon bakery who declined to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s "wedding" celebration were found guilty last week of violating the state’s anti-discrimination law.
The bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, contend they were adhering to their Christian beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman.

On Monday, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced the couple will have to pay up to $150,000 plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for violating the Oregon Equality Act of 2007.

According to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, the exact amount will be determined at a follow-up hearing on March 10.


In an earlier interview with The Daily Signal, Aaron said the fine would bankrupt the couple and their five children.
.................

Although the couple maintains that their decision not to design and bake a lesbian couple’s wedding cake was grounded in their constitutionally-protected right to religion, they’re also arguing before the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that at the time of the alleged discrimination, same-sex "marriage" wasn’t yet legalized in their state.

It wasn’t until months after the Kleins turned away Cryer and Bowman that a federal judge would declare Oregon’s amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex marriages.

“Ironically, the state was in violation of its own anti-discrimination laws,” said Aaron Klein.

so the only reason they lost was because they based their decision on God and not man? (court decision) 

Charlie Burr, speaking for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, told Portland’s NBC KGW:

Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity Sexual behavior, same sex weddings (both of which have nothing to do with the person). The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private individuals businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

from the court decision (rebuttal to follow)

if this law was interpreted according to the English Language even without first amendments protections the Kleins would be allowed to deny a same sex wedding cake for a variety of reasons.

1. it's not the person they are discriminating against but the action of said person, for example it would still be legal to deny 2 homos a room (because their behavior inside the room) as opposed to a single homo because your not discriminating against the homosexual but against the behavior of homosexuality

even if they would change the law so reason 1, is eliminated

2. it would still be legal not to deny the cake, because I would deny the same cake even if the person who bought the cake was an outsider (lets say a parent of the KLALA not misspelled). and I would grant the cake to a homosexual who bought it for a normal wedding (one of the lesbos in this case previously bought a cake from the Kleins for her mothers wedding)!

Liberal insanity built untop of more liberal insanity

The biggest  rebuttal was  from the same court decision
If the only reason that this falls under the non "discrimination" law is because there is no reason to make a distinction between a person and a "wedding" then this statement makes no sense

 (daily signal.com) highlights our additions



I spoke with Aaron Klein by telephone Monday night. He told me the judge’s ruling is a miscarriage of justice and an erosion of religious liberty.

“They’re trying to push us into the closet for being Christians,” he said.

Klein said it’s time for Americans to take a stand for religious liberty.

“The Founding Fathers said we have the inalienable rights given by God — not man,” he said. “Let’s exercise those rights.”


The Kleins’ troubles started in January 2013 when they turned away that lesbian couple. The bakers were relentlessly pummeled in the media. LGBT activists launched protests and boycotts. They tell me their small children even received death threats — simply because they chose to follow the teachings of their faith.

At some point the activists threatened to launch boycotts against any wedding vendor that did business with the Kleins. That turned out to be the death blow to their retail shop. Today, Melissa bakes cakes out of the family’s home.

The question now is how much — if anything — the Kleins will be forced to pay. Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian will decide, and history proves he’s no friend of the Christian bakers.

In 2013, Avakian told The Oregonian that it is the government’s desire was to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Kleins.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Rehabilitate? He wants to ship the Christians off to a government-sanctioned re-education camp?

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.


“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”

Klein said the ruling, which he called “absolutely absurd,” does not surprise him.

“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he said. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”

(fox news by Todd Starnes)

From the court decision saying it would be a crime to go on TV and say that you will not cater a same sex "wedding

But on the plus side for Sweet Cakes owners, the agency’s prosecutors failed in their attempt to bring charges against them because they "unlawfully communicated a future intention to discriminate based on sexual orientation" in subsequent media interviews. The bureau ruled against the prosecutor on this one charge because they never formally said in an interview that they would do the same thing if it ever came up again, if they would have this false charge would have stuck and they would have been "guilty" of this blood libel also . So the couple who owns the bakery will not be fined even further just for saying that they do not agree with the law and will not comply. How charitable of the bureau.

(reason.com)

court decision

1. A personalized wedding cake is a view in support of the "Wedding"

2. So there is no right to free speech when it's not for the public at large?

Atlanta's Fire Chief Fired For Writing That Homosexual Behavior Is A Perversion

For writing this in a book, Kelvin Cochran was fired

Mayor Kasim Reed clearly admitted in the beginning of his press conference that he was firing him FOR HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS despite contradicting himself later. (his denials were the only parts picked up by the media of course)

"What I Want you to know is the cities position is a very clear one. The cities non discrimination policy endorsed by my office, and by the Atlanta City Council, really unequally states, that we will not negotiate, that we will not discriminate on the basis of race, nor gender, nor religon, nor creed, nor sexual orientation nor physical ability, nor gender identity, that's been codified by the City Council and that has been the rule of the executive branch as well.  And what we had said is that any person that violates this conduct, or creates an environment were we believe that is a concern, will not be a part of our administration.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed

I also want to point out that if we had made the decision to retain Chief Cochran, really that the folks in the fire and rescue department, who may have been discriminated against in some future occasion, would have had a valid case in my mind (and I know Cathy is getting nervous) but after the fire chief so clearly stated his position on a number of issues, I thought that it created a potential liability for the city that was unacceptable to me as mayor of the City of Atlanta.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published "controversial" comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a month long suspension in November and had to attend mandated "sensitivity" training classes. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens  — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs as long as it's pro gay."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.
"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said. so either quit or be fired unjustly is fair?

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.
Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value "diversity" and how we adhere to a non-"discriminatory" environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement based on the bible that homosexuality is a perversion is the basis of the problem," Reed said.
(usa today) highlights our additions

The mayor said he decided to terminate Cochran not just because the fire chief didn’t consult him before publishing the book, but also spoke out about his suspension despite being told to remain quiet during the investigation into his leadership. What’s more, Reed said he believes Cochran opened up the city to the potential for litigation over future discrimination claims.

Reed stressed that his decision is not because of Cochran’s faith: “His religious (beliefs) are not the basis of the problem. His judgment is the basis of the problem.”

The mayor said though Cochran consulted the city’s ethics officer before publishing the book, Nina Hickson did not grant approval.

Cochran has a differing account. He said he received verbal clearance from Hickson to publish the book, and therefore didn’t believe he needed permission from Reed as city law allowed it. Hickson could not be reached for immediate comment on Tuesday.

What’s more, Cochran said he gave a copy of the book to Reed’s executive assistant in January 2014, and that the mayor later confirmed receiving it. Cochran also said he was told not to speak to the media, specifically, about his suspension. Cochran has spoken publicly about the matter to religious groups.
____________________________________________


Among what city leaders said were troubling remarks in the fire chief’s book was a description of homosexuality as a “perversion” akin to bestiality and pederasty. Reed said in November that such writings were inconsistent with the city’s employment policies how are private writings that have nothing to do with employment inconsistent with Atlanta's employment policies? and opened an investigation into potential discrimination within the fire department. The findings of that investigation have not yet been released.

(ajc) highlights out additions

To contact: Mayor Kasim Reed

55 Trinity Ave. SW #2500, Atlanta, GA, 30303

Phone: (404) 330-6100