YOU VILL DO VAT YOU ARE TOLD IN OBAMALAND! MACH SNELL! YOU VILL COMPLY.

You vill do vat you are told !!
Mach snell !!

First, they came for the bakers.....

Baker breaks Oregon Law by refusing to bake cake for same sex couples

• Posted by Darla Dawald, National Director on February 2, 2013

Oregon is a very liberal state so it doesn't surprise me that they have enacted some liberal laws, however, this seems to be a State overstepping Federal Constitutional rights. Where do we draw the line? If I am a business owner shouldn't I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? Not according to Oregon's Equality Act of 2007.

Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Ore., is under investigation for illegally refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, claiming it conflicted with his religious beliefs. Klein also allegedly felt compelled to inform one of the brides that her relationship was an "abomination unto the Lord." Klein is now being investigated by the Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement officers for violating the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which has no exception for religious beliefs. Meanwhile, the Fashion Police are looking into Klein's violating the Vans T-shirt Ban of 1998. Source

Another story states:

Klein on Friday denied making the harsh statement, but admitted to a KATU reporter on camera that he did deny her service.

“I apologized for wasting their time and said we don’t do same-sex marriages,” he said. I “honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn’t mean to make anybody upset, (it’s) just something I believe in very strongly.”

But religious beliefs aren’t enough to cover him under state law. The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 prohibits discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The statute includes public accommodations, such as businesses.

Klein emphasized the importance of his religious beliefs, saying it outweighs his bottom line and the state law.

“If I have to be to, I guess, be penalized for my beliefs, then I guess, well, that’ll be what it is,” he said.

The question now: whether his constitutional rights outweigh state statute.

“My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it,” Klein said.

We asked Portland attorney Paula Barran whether this case falls under the 2007 statute. She said it did, but added that she did not know how the owner’s religious beliefs would factor in.

“Statutes don’t get to overcome constitutional protections, so if somebody had a religious-based reason for wanting not to trade with somebody, I think you have a really interesting test case for whether or not a statute like this can apply,” Barran said. There is no exception under the state's anti-discrimination law for religious beliefs. Ultimately, the case would be up for a judge to decide.

We will continue to see this sort of overstepping state by state unless "we the conservatives" get involved at the local level and recruit others to join us to stop this constant assault of our Constitutional rights.

We need to stand with the Aaron Kleins of the world! We need to be Aaron Klein and stand up for what we believe even if that means we are taken to court. If we don't act now one day we'll be sitting  in the communist states of America.

The Oregon Equality Act is ridiculous piece of legislation used as a liberal response to "discrimination of LGBT" and needs to be overturned.

Want to support this baker and his wife?  Here is some information from their website:

THE NEST OF TRAITORS GIVING IT ALL AWAY - TO CHINA! TREASURY MAY GIVE CHINESE BUSINESSMEN ESPIONAGE WAIVER

http://lastresistance.com/1114/treasury-department-may-grant-chinese-businessmen-espionage-waiver/

Traitor in the White House
Traitor in the Treas,
Traitors in the Pentagon
Traitor at State

Traitors in the Congress
Traitors in the Courthouse
Traitors in the Cabinet...
 Did I forget anyone? 
Please correct me.

There's not much left but us, so many against so few.

 

THE OBAMACARE SURCHARGE CAUSING PRICES TO RISE

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-obama-surcharge.html

PCII GIVES DHS ALL YOUR BUSINESS SECRETS FOR YOUR SAFETY!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pcii-gives-dhs-all-your-business-secrets-for-your-safety.html

THOSE SILLY GOVERNMENT REGS - AND THE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS

This video is a specific example of how silly government requirements can stifle the growth of small business and take away one man's economic liberties.  Though it is a specific example, the problem is systematic and widespread. It's happening all around us and only the big business companies can afford to comply with bizarre and useless requirements, and often THEY are given exemptions.  I'd imagine, big companies must love this sort of thing. How better to stifle your competition than to let the government to do it for you?  Video:  http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/9118.html  Goodman Green - Brasscheck  P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and videos with friends and colleagues.   That's how we grow. Thanks. 

VETS AND SMALL BUSINESSMEN TO MARCH FOR IMPEACHMENT ON VETERANS DAY IN WASHINGTON, DC

http://www.westernjournalism.com/vets-small-businessmen-to-march-for-impeachment-on-veterans-day/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=e906abb861-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

ANOTHER OBAMA-SUPPORTING DEMOCRAT SAYS HE'S ANTI-BUSINESS...

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2011/10/another-obama-supporting-democrat.html

RON PAUL IS THE FIX! RON PAUL WANTS TO ABOLISH THE IRS AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP MORE OF THE MONEY YOU EARN.

ILLINOIS SHUTTING DOWN ARTISAN ICE CREAM MAKERS FOR CRIME OF USING FRESH FRUIT

http://www.infowars.com/illinois-shutting-down-artisan-ice-cream-makers-for-crime-of-using-fresh-fruit/

TSA AGENTS REFUSED SERVICE AT SEATTLE BUSINESS - GO SEATTLE!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/seattle-business-refuses-to-serve-tsa-agents.html

EX-CIA SPY RUNS PRIVATE SPY AGENCY BY HIS POOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/world/23clarridge.html?_r=2&hp

Frigtening News from Dick Morris: Democratic Bill Allows Takeover of Businesses - read that last sentence!

 Democratic Bill Allows Takeover of Businesses
>
> Wednesday, 14 Apr 2010 10:02 AM
>
> *By: Dick Morris*
>
> **
>
> If the financial regulation bill that passed the House last year becomes
> law, President Obama and his Treasury secretary will acquire the right
> to take over any financial institution they wish to, provided that, in
> their sole opinion, it is both "too big to fail" and on the brink of
> insolvency. The House bill provides for no judicial review and does not
> require any objective evidence of imminent failure to trigger the
> takeover provisions.
>
> Once the government takes over such a company, it will acquire the right
> to replace the entire board of directors, fire the management of the
> company, wipe out stockholder equity, and even sell off divisions of the
> company.
>
> Essentially, this bill permits the government to launch an unfriendly
> takeover of any financial institution it wishes without risk and with no
> poison pill or other counter-measures possible.
>
> This legislation, essentially, confers on the federal government police
> powers that, under our system, are the exclusive preserve of state and
> local government. The blank check the bill gives the feds to take over
> any financial institution is really more of an exercise of eminent
> domain than it is an extension of traditional federal regulatory power.
>
> This grant of power to the executive branch is unprecedented and
> potentially totalitarian. Consider:
>
>     * Will Obama, or any future president, target companies that are
>       particularly vocal in their opposition to his policies or generous
>       in funding his political opponents? Will the fact that Obama would
>       have this power force companies, investors, CEOs and managers to
>       self-censor their opinions and political involvement because they
>       fear the wrath of a vengeful president?
>     * Will this grant of authority force companies to hesitate before
>       they grow and expand? Will it function the same way the antitrust
>       powers of the Justice Department do in making companies re-examine
>       mergers and acquisitions with a view toward what Justice will
>       think of their resulting market share? In antitrust situations,
>       where a specific action brings companies under scrutiny — like a
>       merger — such concern is not unreasonable. But when the simple act
>       of making money, showing a profit and expanding in size puts a
>       company in federal crosshairs, does this not have the potential to
>       attenuate the capitalist focus on growth?
>     * In an environment where the feds are looking over the shoulder of
>       every financial institution to see if they should take it over and
>       shut it down, will this not force financial companies to follow
>       the most risk-averse lending policies possible? Doesn't this mean
>       that it only makes sense to buy government paper, since consumer
>       loans, mortgages and business lending could be considered risky
>       and lead to a federal takeover? Isn't this policy precisely the
>       opposite of what we need to catalyze economic growth?
>     * In a political world where contributions from financial
>       institutions are sought and widely given, doesn't this power give
>       the president and his party unlimited fundraising ability, simply
>       by baring its teeth and showing the power it has to take anybody
>       over and fire anybody?
>
> Given the fact that Goldman-Sachs was the second-largest donor to
> Obama's campaign, giving $954,795, doesn't this new power raise the
> specter that the federal government could take over financial
> institutions so as to make the competition lighter for its donors?
>
> Already, there is considerable evidence (cited in our new book, 2010:
> Take Back America — a Battle Plan) that Goldman profited handsomely from
> the decision of its former CEO — Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
> — to allow Lehman Brothers to fail. Now that the Treasury secretary will
> have the takeover power, might it not be used as irresponsibly and with
> as many bad consequences as Paulson used his power in the Lehman crisis?
>
> While the focus on the regulatory bill has been on the consumer
> protection provisions, which I tend to support, there has been far less
> scrutiny on these horrific expansions of federal power.
>
> Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez could only dream of this power.
>
>
> © Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
>
>
>

NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS THREATEN SMALL BUSINESS ACCESS TO CREDIT

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18765&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

More town hall speakers - this one's hot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu66NGWKoKo&feature=fvw