Thread: Free Speech - unless we don't agree with you ...

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles
by Wochit 1:00 mins

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Video at link : https://screen.yahoo.com/white-house...124405904.html

Originally Posted by hblueeyes

Wouldn't the spherical shape of the Earth then prove islam to be wrong and therefore a non religion.

This is why they think they should kill anyone who disagrees with them ... to silence any views other then their own.

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

YAHOO NEWS LEFT OUT CRUCIAL DETAIL IN AIRASIA ‘ALLAHU AKBAR’ STORY
Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 9:55 AM

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Yahoo News sourced their version of this article to the New Straits Times Online. So I went to this website and found the original article http://www.nst.com.my/node/69503 and it turns out Yahoo News left something very important out

Analysing the recording while listening to their final words like “Allahuakhbar” repeatedly, give the investigators goose bumps, Nurcahyo said.

“It is as if we can feel them… Allahuakhbar, Allahuakhbar were the last words said before they died,” he said referring to his experience examining black boxes from past crashes.

The phrase “he said referring to his experience examining black boxes from past crashes” was completely left out of the Yahoo News story even though the story is almost identical word for word. Why they would omit such a crucial detail, I’m really not sure. But I certainly can’t do that which is why I’m bringing it to your attention.

http://therightscoop.com/revealed-la...#ixzz3OvyVrKB7

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge January 14, 20015

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles[I]
by Wochit 1:00 mins

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

https://screen.yahoo.com/white-house...124405904.html

Coincidence ????

Cross posted http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...l#post96405894

Federal Attorney Warns Negative Posts Against Islam Could Get You Prosecution & Imprisonment
Tim Brown June 1, 2013

If you have seen the stories around the globe of how cartoonists, journalists and people simply posting tweets or Facebook posts has gotten them in hot water with Islam and even the government, then you have probably said, "That can't happen in America," right? Well hold on to your seat my friend because you are in for a rude awakening.




Barack Obama's Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI's Knoxville Division, want Americans to know that if you say something negative towards Islam or Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you. They will be having an event called "Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society" on June 4, the same day Obama is scheduled to sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

The Tullahoma Times reports, http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

"This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion," Killian told The News Monday. "This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are."

Killian said the presentation will also focus on Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no different from those in other religions.

Killian also wants to portray Oklahoma City Bomber Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols as Christians and then link them to terrorism in the same fashion as Islamic jihadists.

Please, the entire Christian community came out against the actions of the OKC bombing and neither of these guys were Christians, nor were they following the teachings of the Bible. The Islamic community has yet to condemn terrorism and the Qur'an clearly teaches them to commit violence (See video above). They hide behind certain words to mask the terrorism they are to engage in via the Qur'an. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/st...r-seeing-this/

Instead, the Qur'an teaches them to actively engage in jihad. For a thorough dealing with jihad and its historical meaning and understanding, I highly recommend Lebanon-born Walid Phares' book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America. That will help you see clearly that nothing has changed in nearly 1,500 years of Islamic history.

However, the criminal Attorney General Eric Holder seems to be backing Killian and Moore. Judicial Watch reports, http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...-civil-rights/


In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the "us versus them" environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

"Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation," Holder said after expressing that he is "grateful" to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen "crucial dialogue" between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement. [/quote]


The DOJ actually became the first to assure Muslims it is dedicated to protecting them. I don't recall this administration doing the same thing for Christians who are constantly having inflammatory videos and posts put up by Muslims.

Second, Muslims and Arab Americans have "helped build and strengthen our nation"? While I grant there are many Arab Americans who have come here legally, integrated with our society and lived among us and have contributed greatly to the society, I can't give a full stamp of approval that we have been strengthened by Muslims. In fact, I would say we have been weakened by Muslim influence, specifically I'm talking about those currently in the Obama administration and the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Additionally the Tullahoma Times indicated that the goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles. While I grant that every person who calls themselves a Muslim is not engaged in terrorism, the reality is that because of the teachings of the Qur'an, you cannot trust what they say, but respond to what they do. Virtually all Muslim mosques in America are funded by Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries. Virtually all of them also, in turn, fund the Islamic Society of North America, which aligns itself with the Brady campaign to attack the Second Amendment. Additionally these Muslim groups are doing just as the Obama DOJ is doing and that is to go after the First Amendment.

Killian said, "We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It's why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That's why the First Amendment is there."


image: http://cdn5.freedomoutpost.com/wp-co...-228-x-200.jpg
fight-islam-for-me-edited-228-x-200So let's get this straight, the First Amendment is there to protect Islamists in their speech, but not Christians? I see clearly now. Killian clearly doesn't understand that whole part about "Congress shall make no law" regarding not only the establishment of a religion, but also "impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press" among other things. This means his claim about federal law in this matter is completely unconstitutional and he should be removed from his office.

You'll recall back in August 2012 that Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez refused to affirm the First Amendment rights of Americans to speak out against other religions. He was questioned four times and all he did was beat around the bush. http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/ob...aw-in-america/ This is the creeping Sharia that we and many others are warning about.

One wonders just how long it will be until we will be forced to defend our freedom of speech with our freedom to keep and bear arms from Islam and its co-conspirators in government.



Finally, I often hear the famous quotation from Voltaire, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

Well, for those posting this claiming that this should be applied to Christians or Jews, I suggest you take a second look and see who is bringing the hammer down now.

Other links that might be helpful alongside this article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/do...blasphemy-law/

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/fe...-imprisonment/

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Muslims Demand That Obama DOJ Investigate Woman Who Declared Her Business A ‘Muslim Free Zone’
By Jason DeWitt on October 12, 2014



Jan Morgan, owner of Gun Cave Indoor Fire Range in Hot Springs, Arkansas has declared her business a “Muslim Free Zone.” http://youngcons.com/this-woman-decl...r-reasons-why/

But Morgan says it wasn’t because she is“Islamophobic” as the left is now accusing her. She’s said she has experience to back that ban up.

Morgan has spoken out for years on her well-read blog out about the Koran’s verses of violence — and has received numerous death threats from Muslims for it. She cited an incident where “two Muslim men came into her store with an allah akbar ringtone”. They could barely speak English and were trying to “rent and shoot guns”, even though they had no proof of U.S. citizenship, according to blogger Hannah Bleau. http://youngcons.com/muslims-demandi...igated-by-doj/ It greatly disturbed many patrons, as you might imagine. (Morgan lays out a detailed rationale for the ban here http://youngcons.com/this-woman-decl...IoJh1lEXoSf.99 ).

Morgan is a certified firearms instructor, and says the ATF tells them to use their discretion when allowing people to purchase and use weapons.

Morgan knew she was taking a big risk with such a ban. It didn’t take long for the blowback to come.

Jenifer Wicks, Litigation Director for the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) — a radical group that was once named an “un-indicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation trial http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/ho...ies-with-cair/ — wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, urging the Justice Department to get involved. http://www.cair.com/images/letters/C...-Gun-Range.pdf

Wicks wrote:



Ms. Morgan appears to be misinterpreting the advice given to her and refusing service to all Muslims, which cannot be a correct interpretation of compliance with federal gun laws and the U.S. Constitution.

Given the recent spike in anti-Muslim rhetoric, including Islamophobic statements by government officials, I urge you to investigate this matter soon. CAIR believes that systematically banning Muslims from a place of business is a violation of federal laws prohibiting racial and religious discrimination and will inevitably result in a hostile environment for ordinary Muslims in Arkansas.

Morgan is in for a tough fight. as Obama has repeatedly defended Muslims on everything from the “right” to wear burkas in drivers license photos in Florida, to trying to compel a county in Tennessee to permit a mega-mosque to be built using foreign funds, despite public opposition.

As Bleau points out:



Liberals act like pointing out the atrocious acts committed by people in the name of Islam is Islamophobic. Sorry, but with the incredible influx of violence from Muslims and the unsurprising silence from the “moderate” Muslim community, what do you expect? How do you trust people who follow a book that encourages mass slaughter? How can you trust people whose religion gives them permission to lie to infidels?

You can’t. As an American and small business owner, Morgan is making the right move, as politically incorrect as it may seem.

A major battle surely lies ahead. What do you think? Is Morgan out of line? Or is this the first step in Americans finally standing up to an ideology posing as religion, as critics suggest?

http://toprightnews.com/?p=6598

Justice Department To Monitor Arkansas Gun Range That Banned Muslims
By Sean Kelly, Sat, May 2, 2015

The Department of Justice, according to reports, is monitoring an Arkansas gun range that allegedly banned Muslims from shooting weapons on their property.

The DOJ was urged by several advocacy groups to conduct an investigation into Jan Morgan and the Gun Cave Shooting Range in Hot Spring, Arkansas, after Morgan declared the range a “Muslim-free zone” in September. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that the range was “systematically banning Muslims from a place of business.” The ban, according to CAIR, was “a violation of federal laws prohibiting racial and religious discrimination.” The American Civil Liberties Union also requested an investigation.

The Justice Department confirmed that it was “monitoring the matter,” but did not indicate whether it would launch an investigation.

“We welcome this positive development and hope it leads to a thorough investigation of clear violations of the civil rights of American Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim by the gun range owner,” CAIR director Jenifer Wicks said in a statement.

In September, Morgan garnered attention when she stated that her range would not “rent or sell a gun and hand ammunition to someone who aligns himself with a religion that commands him to kill me.” A South Asian father and son were reportedly denied entry into the facility in January, and accused Morgan of racial profiling.

“We’re brown; I don’t know if she assumed we were Muslim,” one of the men, who requested to remain anonymous, said. “When she first asked us, she said, ‘I would hope if you were Muslim you guys wouldn’t be cowards and would be upfront about it.'”

Morgan said in a statement that she has been “under the watchful eyes of federal law enforcement authorities for a long time” due to “years of death threats” from Muslims. She said that she is prepared for an investigation should the Justice Department conduct one.

“I was prepared to fight this from day one,” she said. “I will close my business before I will make any compromises that could jeopardize the safety and security of the members who shoot here… [I] will continue to follow the advise [sic] of two agencies within the DOJ to protect and defend my own life, as well as the lives of innocent American citizens in my presence, from any and all threats of violence connected to, and or associated with any and all terrorist organizations.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/relig...banned-muslims

Friday, 05/22/2015 - 02:45 pm EST

Lesbian Couple Demanded A Refund From The Jeweler Who Made Rings For Them AFTER They Found Out He's Christian

In what universe does this make ANY kind of sense?

According to this, Nicole White and Pam Renouf are a lesbian couple from Canada who went to a jewelry store to have a pair of custom engagement rings made. They were satisfied with the prices and the store's service and they even recommended the business to several of their friends. But one of those friends came back to them after going there and finding the business had a sign posted in the window that says "The Sanctity of Marriage is Under Attack. Let's Keep Marriage Between a Man and a Woman." And when Nicole and Pam found out about the sign, they rushed back to the store and demanded their money back. Even though they previously were happy with the business and the only thing that changed is that they found out the business owners supported traditional marriage.

Quoting from the article - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...fund-1.3077192

They just said that that's their beliefs, and they think they can put up whatever they want. I just said it was very disrespectful, it's very unprofessional and I wanted a refund," White said.

"I have no issues with them believing in what they believe in. I think everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But I don't think they should put their personal beliefs inside their business."

White and Renouf hope to get a refund when the man who sold them the rings returns to town next month — but it's not guaranteed.

White said the rings were meant to be a symbol of love, but now the bands seem tainted. "I think every time I look at that ring, I'll probably think of what we just went through,"

"The bands are tainted"? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? What, you think the guy's Christian beliefs are going to rub off on you through the metal or something? That you'll suddenly feel bigoted toward yourself? First you claim "Take Backsies" and now you're afraid of those icky Christian cooties. What are you? Four?

The store owner, Esau Jordan, had this to say in response -

"I feel really bad that [White] feels that we would in any way try to hurt or discriminate against her, but we will not retract from what we believe. I cannot say, 'Well because you feel bad, I will stop believing what I believe,'" he said.

"When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don't have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada... and we accept the whole package... I don't discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it's in my own business."

Even worse - the business had to close down their Facebook page because of all the disgusting hateful comments that came flooding in after this took place.

So let me get this straight - you go to a business to make a purchase, you are satisfied with the job they did and how you were treated, you even recommend the business to other people, but when you find out that their religious/political beliefs don't agree with yours - THAT'S justification for demanding a refund and sending out the attack dogs?

Newsflash, honey - a person's political or religious beliefs have NOTHING to do with the things they create or do. Do you want to know the best time I had buying something at the mall? I was buying a couple of t-shirts for Comic Con and the guy helping me find what I wanted had gay pride buttons on his work lanyard and he was nearly every gay stereotype you could imagine. But he was the nicest, most polite guy I have ever encountered and we got talking about Comic Con and what we were excited to see. And I was even wearing a ring I have that has a religious symbol on it that I'm certain he saw while he was helping me. In that moment, our beliefs about marriage and gay rights didn't matter one stinking bit because we were focused on something we had in common and that was much more interesting than these tired debates.

Bottom Line: Just because you disagree with a customer or a business owner doesn't automatically mean that they're going to treat you like crap or give you subpar service. But if this situation is any indication, it looks like the LGBTQ has a free pass to do whatever they like to any business owner who believes in traditional marriage.

http://chicksontheright.com/blog/ite...he-s-Christian

comments

Holy crap this can't be for real (yet I know it is).

Don't make rings (or cake) because of beliefs = potential lawsuit.

Do make rings = potential lawsuit because of beliefs.

Okay I am officially DONE. DONE.

...

My thoughts exactly. If he would have refused to make the rings, he would be in court for discrimination. I could scream.

..

That was the first thing I thought of too. Like, what is this? Can't NOT sell it to them, but also can't SELL it to them. Is there a third choice?

..

We, as a country have now reached the point where evil is good, and good is evil. I believe it when they say the LGBT community aim is to destroy the Christian faith. Imagine, if the jewelry store had not posted the sign, these two women would never have known. Would the rings have then been tainted?

Perhaps they are just upset because they realized on an impulse they spent too much money on the rings.

..

I believe any business owner should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason they want.

Same goes for patrons, shop where you want to.

Emails Raise Questions of Bias in Case Against Bakers Who Denied Service for Same-Sex Wedding
Kelsey Harkness / June 01, 2015

The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In April, a judge for the agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.

“That’s a clear conflict of interest,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

State agencies have a duty to represent the best interests of the general public, not the interests of one particular advocacy group. The relationship shown by these communications is inappropriate and raises basic questions about the objectivity, bias, and fairness of this agency and its proceedings.

It is unclear what occurred during these meetings and phone calls, but the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries commissioner, who is in charge of determining the Kleins’ final punishment, met with Basic Rights Oregon on multiple occasions and purchased tickets costing hundreds of dollars benefiting the advocacy group.

In a statement to The Daily Signal, Charlie Burr, communications director for the Bureau of Labor and Industries, said the agency and its commissioner are “committed to fair enforcement” of the state’s anti-discrimination measure.

“We are committed to fair enforcement of the Oregon Equality Act of 2007 and other civil rights protections,” Burr said via email on Friday. “In each case, we investigate the unique set of facts to determine whether substantial evidence exists.”

But unearthed emails appear to challenge that narrative, and based on The Daily Signal’s findings, lawyers for the Kleins on Friday requested the case be re-opened for further investigation.



The State’s Case Against Sweet Cakes by Melissa

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is in charge of defending the state’s Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits businesses from refusing service to customers based on their sexual orientation, among other characteristics.

When claims of discrimination occur, plaintiffs must file a complaint with the bureau.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer (who have since married) filed a complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa in February 2013, a month after the Kleins refused to make a cake for the couple’s same-sex wedding.

At the time, same-sex marriage was not legal in Oregon, and Basic Rights Oregon was in the process of gathering signatures to bring the measure to the ballot in the upcoming 2014 election.

Oregon began recognizing same-sex marriages from other states in October of 2013, and on May 19, 2014, a federal judge struck down the ban, legalizing gay marriage.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries waited until August 2013 to open its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa, six months after the agency received the initial complaint from Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

The Emails

Communications between Bureau of Labor and Industries Commissioner Brad Avakian and Basic Rights Oregon, which has actively spoken out against the Kleins, raise questions about whether the commissioner and other agency employees were using the case to benefit a political agenda, and in the process, stripping the Kleins of their right to a fair trial.

According to emails, Avakian met with Basic Rights Oregon on multiple occasions.

One of those meetings was planned for May 1, 2014, shortly before a federal court struck down Oregon’s Defense of Marriage Act.

Another meeting between the commissioner and Basic Rights Oregon occurred on or around August 5, 2014. This fell between the time a judge denied the Kleins’ first attempt to disqualify the commissioner for bias and shortly before a hearing for the case was scheduled to begin.



On or around Oct. 7, 2014, Avakian accepted a phone call from Jeana Frazzini, co-director of Basic Rights Oregon, according to another email.

On Dec. 2, 2014, a Basic Rights Oregon employee wrote of Avakian, “His voice is really important as a coalition partner, and a leader in Oregon politics.”

Emails also show Avakian purchasing tickets costing hundreds of dollars to attend Basic Rights Oregon’s annual fundraising galas and gay pride parades, while his agency’s case against the Kleins was underway.

In 2012, Basic Rights Oregon donated almost $8,000 to Avakian’s bid for commissioner.

‘Inherent Conflict of Interest’

Avakian is a hugely important figure in the Kleins’ case—he will determine the fine amount the Kleins ultimately pay.

This April, Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who was appointed to his position by Avakian and is also employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, issued a “proposed order” for the case against Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

McCullough recommended the Kleins pay $135,000 to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, saying the Kleins imposed mental, physical and emotional damages upon the lesbian couple by refusing to serve them.

Now, Avakian must issue a final ruling on the case, and in doing so, he “can adopt all or any part” of McCullough’s proposed order.



Avakian is expected to issue that order this summer, when the Kleins will then have the opportunity to file an appeal.

Von Spakovsky, who is a critic of the administrative law process, says the relationship between Avakian and an activist group would be an obvious ethics violation in a normal court system.

“The problem with administrative law judges appointed by a government agency is that they have an inherent conflict of interest—the agency is acting as judge, prosecutor, jury, and executioner, which is a basic violation of fundamental due process protections,” he said.

The whole point of having an independent judiciary is to separate the judicial and prosecutorial functions and avoid this type of conflict

.

The Media

In addition to Avakian’s relationship with Basic Rights Oregon, Charlie Burr, communications director for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, appears to have worked closely with the gay rights organization in shaping the media’s narrative of the case.

A Basic Rights Oregon employee emailed Burr on January 31, 2015—immediately following McCullough’s order—expressing interest in “hearing about your plan regarding Sweet Cakes case.”

On April 30, 2015, Burr forwarded a conversation to Basic Rights Oregon between himself and an editorial board member for The Oregonian newspaper—related to the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case—with the memo, “FYI.”

In the email, Burr attempted to make clear to the editor that the final order was not an “opportunity” for Avakian to “show leadership,” but rather, to make a decision “that best serves justice based on the unique facts of the case.”



“The fact that a state agency is turning over its communications between itself and a major media outlet proves they’re acting in concert with a private advocacy group,” von Spakovsky said.

Burr routinely ignored press inquires from The Daily Signal about the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case, but proactively informed Basic Rights Oregon of updates in the case, sometimes via text.

Rooting the Relationship

The relationship between the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and Basic Rights Oregon came to light during a hearing that was held on February 13, 2015.

Concerned that the Bureau of Labor and Industries was working with Basic Rights Oregon to figure out how the case fit into the broader debate over marriage equality in Oregon, the Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, asked a brother of one of the complainants why the lesbian couple decided to pursue the legal case against the bakery.

Aaron Cryer, the brother of Rachel Bowman-Cryer, was a witness to the case because he was living with the couple at the time of the alleged discrimination.

“There was a point in time where [the Bureau of Labor and Industries] was unsure on whether or not we should pursue the case right now or wait, just because of marriage equality in Oregon becoming a thing, and we were looking at the scope as a bigger whole. Because the whole reason of pursuing this case is to change these behaviors,” Aaron Cryer said.

A prosecutor for the Bureau of Labor and Industries later appears to encourage Aaron Cryer to “clarify” his statement about the bureau’s intentions in pursuing the case.

“Do you recall Basic Rights Oregon reaching out to Laurel and Rachel?” the prosecutor asked.

“[The Bureau of Labor and Industries] and Basic Rights Oregon. I think I kind of put the two together,” Aaron Cryer said. “Basic Rights Oregon was the organization that me and Laurel and the rest of the family had a conversation about, about pursuing the case, if I remember correctly.”

A Blocked Investigation


Suspicious of potential collusion, Harmon, the Kleins’ lawyer, requested the judge allow her to further investigate the state’s relationship with Basic Rights Oregon.

“We argued that because of Aaron Cryer’s testimony, the judge should allow us to re-depose the complainants and even people at BOLI [Bureau of Labor and Industries] to figure out exactly what happened and if there was any collusion,” Harmon told The Daily Signal.

On March 17, 2015, the judge denied that request.

On Friday, based on The Daily Signal’s records request, Harmon again requested the judge re-open the record and allow them to seek more information.

“Aaron Cryer’s testimony, combined with that knowledge, causes us to wonder to what extent, if any, the commissioner was working with Basic Rights Oregon and the complainants in the preliminary stages of this case,” she said.

Any such collusion would show that the decision maker in this case was not neutral, and the State of Oregon would have violated the Kleins’ fundamental constitutional right to due process of law. We have a right to know what went on, and we’re asking the ALJ [administrative law judge] to allow us to find out.

Despite sensing from the beginning that the “the fix was in,” the Kleins and their attorneys are hopeful this new batch of communications will be enough to prove bias in the case.

If the judge denies the request to re-open the record and the commissioner moves forward in issuing a final order solidifying the $135,000 fine, the Kleins vow to continue their fight to live out their religious beliefs in the workplace.

“We absolutely have the right to appeal and intend on preserving those rights,” Harmon said.


MORE :
http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/01/em...e-sex-wedding/

When I hear about the people who are getting so upset because someone doesn't support - even celebrate - their lifestyle choices ... when people confuse getting their feelings hurt with "pain and suffering" ... I have to ask ... why are they not bringing down the roof over this

ISIS Forces Throw Gay Men Off Buildings In Iraq
By Jordan Smith, Thu, June 4, 2015

Pictures have surfaced showing the Islamic extremist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) throwing three gay men from the top of a building in Iraq.

The incident occurred in Mosul, the largest city in Iraq under ISIS control, according to Daily Mail.

The newspaper reported that the men, dressed in blue tracksuits, were dangled over the edge of the 100-foot high building, before being allowed to fall to their deaths. In the unlikely event they survived, ISIS militants encouraged the watching crowd to stone the blindfolded victims to death.

Some of the pictures were too disturbing to print, Daily Mail wrote.


Women wearing the niqab, the full-length Muslim veil, were seen in the crowds. According to Daily Mail, ISIS permitted them to leave home specially to attend the execution.

ISIS has executed gay men in areas of Syria under its control in the same way, according to a CNN report following the publication of similar images in March.




“LGBT people in Syria need help, and they need to be supported,” Nour, a gay rights activist, told CNN.

“We tried to reach out to some groups, international entities, and they said that LGBT people in Syria are not our priority,” he added.

Many have had to flee the country to avoid falling in to the hands of ISIS. Nour was hoping to secure asylum in the US, CNN stated.

Daily Mail reported that the large crowds seen in Mosul in the latest images showed that there was a high level of public support for the militants and their executions.



However, other reports on the rule of ISIS in Mosul suggest that locals are far from supportive.

“In recent months, an atmosphere of repression and intimidation has grown, locals say,” the Guardian wrote in October 2014. “Isis has forced Christians and other minorities to leave the city. It has carried out public beheadings and shootings of individuals it considers a threat, including doctors, parliamentarians and ordinary citizens.”

The report noted that Muslim preachers who refused to swear loyalty to ISIS when they entered the city were placed under house arrest.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/world...buildings-iraq