Oregon Court of Appeals Sides With “Gender Impaired Cripples”, Over the Rest of US “Cripples”! But Don’t Be Surprised…It’s Politics as Usual From the Neo-Left– But Isn’t It Really Just More of That Good Old “American Apartheid” From the Elite? You Know, Divide Then Conquer the Goydumb (and steal their kids)!

SUPREME COURT VOTES IN FAVOR OF ARTISTS AND GOD!
GENDER-IMPAIRED CRIPPLES AND BOLI BIGOTS,
YOU MIGHT SAY, GET IT UP THE ASS [7-2]!
(Justice Elena Kagan gets it right, if it’s not identical, it’s art, and it’s protected speech!)

(Last updated: June 5, 2018)
Oregon Court of Appeals Sides With “Gender Impaired Cripples”,
Over the Rest of US “Cripples”!
But Don’t Be Surprised…It’s Politics as Usual From the Neo-Left–
by DR Wolfe

{This article was originally written and published in January of 2018}

Before telling you a little dirty secret about the Oregon Court of Appeals, and its not good as far as straight men with disabilities are concerned, there are some obvious errors in this unanimous decision — a legal decision which once again sided with the “gender impaired cripples”. The disabled community needs to understand why this ruling is important and what it means for the rest of us “cripples”–

Before talking about why the court is openly favoring one impairment over another, as this decision clearly documents, let’s talk about the First Amendment rights of an artist to say “no”, since many great artists are people with disabilities.

Let’s say a member of a certain protected class hires a band and tells them what songs to play and how to play them. Except the band doesn’t have the right to refuse the offer or they will be sued for discrimination. This is outrageous!

On the other hand, if the artist agreed to the terms and didn’t perform, as specified in the contract, then yes, they could be sued for breach of contract. However, in this decision the court is now saying the artist or musician, or performer, can’t ever say “no”, if the perspective employer is a member of a certain “protected” class.

The problem with this argument is that an artist does not serve the public, even if they do have a public “place of business”. The artist lives to serves their community (no matter how small it is), not the entire world, although sometimes that’s the result of what they do. Those of us on the outside may interpret their art any way we choose, but unless we have a contractual agreement, we have no right to control what art they make.

Now if this were a manufacturer of houses, or even a plumber, and they refused to provide their service or product to a couple who happen to be “gay”, then this would be a clear case of discrimination. But this logic, of claiming making art is merely a commercial endeavor, or claim it is merely a public accommodation, doesn’t apply to the work artists do. Even though artists may, and often do, have a small business built around their talent.

Since I’ve played a few weddings and fund raisers in my day, I can imagine this scenario:
Let’s say this gender impaired couple wanted to hire my band for a wedding. And they said my band would only get the job (and we really, really need the money) if we would sing Helen Reddy’s classic hit, “I am Woman”, I wouldn’t disagree, it’s a great song, the way she sings it!

So, without telling anyone in the band, I decide to do it at the wedding as a parody (as i often do), instead…

My temporary employer (contractor) feels highly offended and personally damaged, forever and ever! But there’s no written contract, and we only agreed to play the song. How we play it is like telling a cake decorator how to specifically decorate a wedding cake, without a signed, written agreement. The band and a few guests think its pretty funny, especially with the wig I brought.

However, under this ruling this contractor could sue me, not because I refused to play, as I told the band I really wanted to do, and not because, they didn’t take my advice and hire a different band (who may or may not sing the song the way they like), but because I didn’t want to be sued for simply refusing, because it offended my sensibility and reputation as an artist.

So following the court’s logic, I am now being told the exact sort of art I must create, and I can’t refuse. Even though a photograph of this work of art I was forced to create (or pay an outrageous fine) will likely become part of my reputation, and possibly damage my career as an independent artist.

Personally, I could care less if the artist is making art that is considered to be religious or not. But as an artist, it Seems like a very, very dangerous path to follow for any real liberal who happens to enjoy the freedom of making whatever damn art they want to make.

Besides, It’s not the same as the grip certain groups seem to have over Hollywood, where there aren’t other options if you want to say “NO, HARVEY!”

If the LBGTQ Community wanted the courts to reinterpret the public accommodation laws I think they made a bad choice going after these artists rather than some lunch counter in Arizona or some widget maker in Ohio.
If it were me, I’d close my business to, and then tell them, “Hell, decorate your own damn cake! We’re artists first. the business is just a way to make a little money on the side doing what we really want to do — decorating cakes!”

But there’s a bigger question here, in the decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals that those with disabilities need to consider. We as a society have unofficially declared, solely for political reasons, that those within the LBGTQ Community are a separate protected class. I would argue, in fact, they are Americans with disabilities (or impairments, if you like), and fall under the same umbrella, as far as being a protected class. They deserve no more or less rights than every other American with a disability or impairment.

So I’m calling for the LBGTQ Community to come out of the closet, and join the disabled community, who all deserve to be accommodated (when appropriate). Instead, this sub-group of disabled Americans is attempting to redefine our American Constitution to fit their personal goals. and in doing so, they are destroying many lives, including the two cake decorators/artists from Gresham, Oregon.

First let’s all agree on one thing. If anyone from the LBGTQ Community has been chemically altered, willfully or negligently, we ought to help them, if possible, find a medical solution, and hold those responsible fully accountable for the damages.

So when someone has been injured, we all agree that compensation is due. But would if it’s no accident…and those who have been injured are being convinced that they are the new “normal”, so they don’t complain to much (or seek damages), and instead, focus entirely on being accepted for what they are.

There is some evidence to support the idea that we are being manipulated, biologically. For example, the BBC recently reported that a survey taken at one British secondary school showed that 40% of the students identified themselves as, or having feelings of, being “transgender”. Does this suggest to you that something in our environment may likely be causing this high level of gender confusion among our youth? Biologically speaking, does this seem “normal” for biological organisms that must reproduce to survive

Yet our military, our government, and now the Oregon Court of Appeals, have granted preferential treatment to these disabled Americans, to the detriment of others who are similarly situated by carving out this selective class of disabled Americans.

Be aware, the entire neo-liberal effort to do this, solely for political reasons, is unconstitutional, and in this case clearly violates both the First and the Fourteenth Amendment.

While it should be obvious to every artist why this finding violates our First Amendment to free speech, and there’s one additional point to be made, the rest of this article will focus on the Fourteenth Amendment argument.

Most artists know this, but in the business world there is always agreements and promises made. Most savvy business people put those understandings in writing, and both parties agree to the terms before they sign (if they have the capacity to do so).

So if any member of any protected class ever wants to hire you, as an artist, you better first get a written contract and make it as clear as possible about what you’re agreeing to do. Just in case you don’t already know, the temporary employer or contractor can insist that the contract include terms that prohibit you from not performing any parodies. The contract can also prevent you from doing anything “offensive”, and the term offensive can mean almost anything they (or their lawyers) want it to mean. The court will decide, and the loser almost always pays the cost of litigation.

Remember, they can always claim you offended them (or some of their guests), and despite that you feel you did perform to the terms of the contract, they can refuse to pay you.

Only a business contract with specific terms can facilitate this sort of exchange of commerce between reasonable parties.

If we want to keep making the art we want to make, we must do the following:
* First we must demand our right to have all of our disputes, with regard to our work, always decided under contract law;
* Second, we must demand our right to refuse any contract for any reason, and demand the government never subject artists to the same level of scrutiny required under all Fourteenth Amendment claims of discrimination.

Just as a note, there are three levels of scrutiny under discrimination claims based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

The highest level of scrutiny involves claims based on racial discrimination, since the courts have clearly determined that there is never a good reason to discriminate on the basis of race. Whether or not race was the deciding factor is always the argument in these cases.

The next level of scrutiny involves Fourteenth Amendment claims of discrimination based on gender, religion or nationality. The courts have decided there are some rare situations where discrimination is acceptable, such as a religious organization hiring a person with similar views over someone who does not share their views. You may recall, the restaurant chain, “Hooters”, successfully argued that having only female servers was constitutional.

And the third level of scrutiny involves claims based on age or disability. In these cases the courts have said a standard of reasonableness must be applied in these cases, since there are many reasons to discriminate. Like why pilots must be able to see and fire fighters must be physically fit.

I would argue that any claims involving one’s gender impairment ought to be filed, if ‘contract law’, doesn’t apply. And I would argue that this is where any claim of discrimination against the LBGTQ Community by any artist unwilling to perform their talents, at any price, more appropriately belongs.

And the great thing about contract law is that it forces both parties to negotiate and come to specific terms they both can agree to, in principle, before signing the agreement and being bound by its terms. If either party violates the contract the legal system already provides the injured party with many ways to remedy the wrong. Yet, the courts and the government are slowly carving out these special limited rights for one certain perceived, protected class that disregards current contract law, which requires a certain level of reasonableness and specificity that isn’t required in most Fourteenth Amendment cases.

As I said earlier, this case is also about whether or not the LBGTQ Community, or what I have begun calling the “gender impaired” community is a legitimate separate protected class, and not simply, a sub group of the existing protected class, “Americans with disabilities”.

And this difference is important, because we allow the “gender impaired” Americans in our military, but we don’t allow other disabled Americans. Why should a person who was disabled from birth, yet fully qualified to perform a certain job, be denied the opportunity to “serve based on having another type of impairment”? Is there a true justification for this distinction between impairments?

This is important because those who have been disabled during their “service” are very often given preferential treatment over Americans with disabilities who were discriminated against in their effort to seek employment from the same U.S. Military.

And this case, the LBGTQ Community is absolutely right. All hiring, whatever it is the military or any one else, should be based on a person’s ability to perform the duties of the job. And any accommodations should be based on a case-by-case basis (in almost all employment situations).

On the other hand, I think they made two mistakes. I would have preferred that the LBGTQ Community argue that the government has no right to issue any marriage licenses to anyone, regardless of gender. Let’s let the churches handle it!

And I would have more respect for this particular sub-group of disabled Americans if they were arguing that government (or business) documents or any data base, other than in rare cases involving legitimate law enforcement purposes, should never include information about one’s gender, regardless of how they define it.

There’s two good examples of what makes a liberal different from a neo-liberal, if you’ve ever wondered. Oh, and liberals believe in helping the weakest link get stronger, not because there’s a gun or laser at your head forcing you to do it, but because it’s good for everyone!

So the other question in this case, beyond an artist’s First Amendment right to say “no”, is whether or not the “LBGTQ Community” is a separate protected class? As a life-long “cripple”, who has assisted and/or lived with hundreds of disabled Americans (and every one of them is different), I will argue that in practical terms they are not.

As this case moves forward, we can hope this gross constitutional error will be remedied once and for all by the highest court, and we can end this political fraud.

So I would like to be the first among the disabled community to welcome the LBGTQ Community into our protected class, so we can focus on making some real changes that benefit everyone!

So here’s my argument over giving special protective class status for the LBGTQ Community, and it’s pretty simple:
Whether you believe in god or nature, or the powers of the universe, surely you must agree there is a force we don’t completely understand that encourages life to self-perpetuate or replicate itself. Among mammals, this normally requires a single female egg and a single male sperm, and one brief moment of contact between them.

I suppose you could argue humans have already overcome this dependency, or burden, and we should take full advantage of this scientific knowledge. However, perhaps that is an argument for another day. Thankfully, for the most part we have not quite arrived at that ‘brave new world’ just yet. For the moment, gender still does matter.

So let’s compare being “gay” as opposed to being “disabled”. If we as Americans with disabilities are not able to enjoy in the daily pleasures and functions of life because of our impairment, and it is possible to over come those impairments with some sort of “reasonable” accommodation, then we are presumably protected under the law. However, as I write about in “3 Americas”, this is usually not how it works for most of us with severe disabilities, in either red or blue states. For decades the disabled were prohibited by law from going out in public without being completely covered [Ugly Laws], so there are a lot of similarities in the struggle for equality between these two groups of impaired Americans.

So, the LBGTQ Community wants to be accommodated because of what they say is their preference, but isn’t it really an impairment?

They would argue their preference to not procreate with someone of the opposite gender, or their desire to assume the identity of the opposite gender, or their desire to not be identified by their gender, is a natural biological occurrence. Yet everything around us tells us that it is not what the forces of god or nature, or the universe, intended, even if it does sometimes happen exactly that way.

Does this mean we should scorn them or fear them? Obviously not, but their policies seem very dangerous to many of us, as self-perpetuating mammals,

Make no mistake, biological organisms that fail to perpetuate life, whether it be because of desire or will; illness or decease; policy or practice; will sooner or later fail to exist. Failing to replicate or reproduce, is clearly and unarguably an impairment on the biological condition, especially to us humans who were born to create life…and art…and other things we want or need…

Perhaps we shouldn’t call it a mental or physical impairment, although there are lots of examples of this…if we wanted to go there–

so, the term “gender impaired” seems most appropriate. And if the LBGTQ Community is in fact “impaired”, then shouldn’t any request or demand from society for a public accommodation from the LBGTQ Community be given the same level of scrutiny as every other disabled American gets when making a request for a public accommodation? Under ‘public accommodation law’ the rules are a little different, if you don’t know.

For example, if I am a wheelchair user and the same bakery is inaccessible, my right to gain entry to their shop does not give me (or the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries )the right to shut down their business, whether they make art or widgets. In this case, and most other public accommodation cases, neither BOLI or the courts should not have the right to legally force this business to pay an outrageous fine (or go out of business) because they can’t or won’t put in a wheelchair ramp or elevator, or make the art some people want them to make.

When accommodating a person with a disability or impairment under the public accommodation laws [ADAAG], other factors must be taken into consideration, such as malice, negligence, a physical barrior, a reasonable fiscal burden on the business, or sometimes, their right as an artist to just say “no”.

Some would argue this is a bad comparison since there is no additional costs to decorating a cake the way they want. But maybe we should ask, as a free society, what is the real cost to all artists when we can force one particular artist of a certain niche to surrender their artistic freedom and reputation (to create what ever art they want)?

Maybe the contractor, who so badly wanted these two artists (for some funny reason), wasn’t willing to offer enough money to hire their expert, decorating services? How much were they willing to pay for this unique work of art from these two particular artists? Is the artist to blame if they couldn’t afford to pay the price they wanted, no matter how high? you know, some art is priceless.

Under the reasonableness requirement, weren’t there any other decorators of cakes in the area who were willing to except their extremely generous offer?

If this is all true, and it is, then who was really being discriminated against here? Perhaps, an artist with certain unpopular religious views?

Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will straighten this out, but the entire case is a travesty, on so many levels. But it points to a much bigger problem; those who are driving this LBGTQ agenda, that seems to more often target the views of the little people (who can’t afford to fight back), rather than perhaps forcing the corporations to award the damages that most of the LBGTQ Community probably deserves!

As I mentioned in the beginning, here’s one reason I know personally why the Oregon Court of Appeals, more than any other, has been so “anti-disability” in their decisions over the last two decades.

As I’ve written about, after being sent a “Dear Mr. Bonor” letter from the Assistant Administrator Linda Mock, with the Oregon Commission for the Blind, I decided to seek vocational services from Oregon’s Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Services instead. Shortly after, the OCB Administrator Charlie Young sent me a letter in early 2000, saying under Oregon law I did not have the legal right to receive vocational services from any other agency except his (I could almost hear him chuckling). And this is the same state agency whose female employees once jokingly asked me to lick one of their crotches in the office in Eugene, and then laughed about it!

In order to seek legal help I knew I needed my personal file, so I sent Mr. Young a letter requesting the file. When he sent me a bill for $200, but not the file, I contacted both State Attorney General Hardy Myers and Governor John Kitzhaber.

Not only did Kitzhaber ignore my letter, but he appointed Mock (who is not disabled) to head this corrupt state agency (apparently, in response to my letter), but the letter I got from the SAG really says everything about how bias and truly corrupt the legal system is here in Oregon.

The letter I received in 2000 from a lawyer with the SAG named David Shulman, was a real “eye opener”. In Mr. Shulman’s brief letter he said I would have to prove there was a public interest before he would agree to release my file to me, without cost. Remember, this is my own personal file, So imagine, this government paid lawyer is claiming in writing I have to prove there is some sort of public interest before he would release it to me, an indigent client with the agency, for free!

But isn’t there a public interest in allowing blind clients in Oregon to refuse to perform oral sex on a state employee in order to get their personal, private file (without cost), and seek services from another state agency (that already serves the disabled community), Justice Shulman?

If you don’t know the rest of the story, a few months later, in 2000, John Kitzhaber appointed David Shulman to the Oregon Court of Appeals. And that really says everything about the Oregon Court of Appeals and this decision, doesn’t it?

Besides, wasn’t the “Equity” Act, which amended our state constitution, supposed to be only symbolic? I know I heard one of its supporters say that same thing on Frankenmite Miller’s show?

But if this case was based on the Equity Act, and it’s being applied arbitrarily by the State to benefit a certain powerful political group, to the detriment of other not so wealthy groups, such as artists, then isn’t it inherently unconstitutional? What the hell does “equity” really mean?

And for that matter, what does “freedom” really mean any more, if someone can force you to make art the way they want!