"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.

Stick to the facts. The case was not about serving blacks.
It was a couple who owned a bakery refusing to be at a gay
wedding reception. They had served the gay customers in the
past, at their bakery location, with no objections.

Now you tell me which is worse. The couple excercising their
religious freedom by not providing, delivering the cake to
the wedding, or what the court did? The "court" in
addition to fining them $130K, applied a gag
order on the couple, telling them that they can't give TV
interviews, talk to the media and say things like "We believe
homosexuality is immoral. The gay couple can find plenty of
other bakers to provide their cake. Where do the bakers find
free speech. This is so horrific, but it is a good example of
where the lib concept of either you're politically correct,
regardless of your religious beliefs, or we will destroy you.

$130K fines and gag orders that are obiously a violation
of the first amendment for two bakers. The San Francisco
lib politicians are violating US immigration law, harboring
illegal felons, resulting in the death of that 32 year old
woman. What's the penalty for them? There is none. That
is the sad state of justice today.

You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

The bakers posted personal information from the complaint on line, and
apparently disregarded court orders regarding discussing the case before it
was adjudicated.

The PDF at

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

explains that what god-botherers and others are calling a gag order only
applies to the baker's "clear intent to discriminate in the future" - page
32 of 122 turgid pages. I find the argument that gag orders violate the 1st
amendment quite curious. If that were true, you'd think they would have
been struck down long ago.

https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment...sues-gag-order

Courts have restrained trial participants from speaking with the press to
prevent prejudicing court proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New
Orleans (5th Cir.) affirmed a gag order prohibiting all trial participants
from giving any public comments to the media other than matters of public
record in a case involving the elected Louisiana Insurance Commissioner,
James Harvey Brown, and the former Governor of Louisiana, Edwin W. Edwards.
The court concluded "that the gag order is constitutionally permissible
because it is based on a reasonably found substantial likelihood that
comments from the lawyers and parties might well taint the jury pool . . .
is the least restrictive corrective measure available to ensure a fair
trial, and is sufficiently narrowly drawn."

The order in the Sweetcakes case was quite narrowly drawn, although if you
listen to some commentators they believe strongly otherwise. I am almost
certain they've never actually read the order or the voluminous case file.

--
Bobby G.