For those of us who understood the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage for what it was, we knew that it effectively nullified the first amendment of the US Constitution. We knew that it was only a matter of time before the state would step in and declare free speech and free exercise to be illegal if such speech and exercise did not meet the approval of certain entities. Though some private companies like newspapers decided to gag their audience, private companies are supposed to be able to regulate what appears in their private property. However, I believe today marks the first time that a state agency has explicitly
abridged the first amendment rights of a private citizen:
The Oregon official imposed a gag order on the couple, mandating that they “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
While the state may issue a gag order in such cases like a trial or a settlement case that has a gag provision as a part of it's agreement, the state may not order a private citizens to not discuss their beliefs and activities in public if they so choose. Such activities are explicitly protected by the US Constitution.
The order is on pages 42-43 of the decision
The flimsy reasoning offered by Oregon:
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
In actuality the business refused to participate in a wedding which violated their beliefs. They did not refuse service to homosexuals. Homosexuals, as far as I know the case, can still buy items from that place of business. The way the Oregon court thought[sic] about it was that the Oregon Bureau has a mandate to make sure people aren't discriminated against and if it means restricting your first amendment rights to do that then so be it. Prior to last week's ruling I would have said that based on the Hobby Lobby decision, enumerated rights would triumph over these kids of rules. But since then I believe there is no reason to believe that any court in the US will uphold enumerated rights and if any court does, it is only a matter of running to another with the same or slightly modified argument to get what they want.
And remember, just last week Justice "I am the law" Kennedy told us that Christians and others who object to SSM on religious principles would be free to speak. Well that was quick wasn't it.
