CP of Oregon logo The Constitution Party of Oregon is adamantly opposed to the goals of those who are pushing Senate Bill 2 & House Bill 3526. These bills will further restrict personal choice in the matter of private hiring, and renting or selling of property or services. They have concocted a recipe for civil war, as it pushes people on other people that don’t want their association. . .

State Chairman Jack Brown says, “Everyone should read this legislation. It clearly gives those who choose non-traditional sexual behavior preference over those with traditional moral values. This legislation will lock religious people inside their church buildings and let perversion occupy the rest of the landscape! We call on fair minded, freedom loving Oregonians, regardless of their political affiliations, to join us in saying “NO” to the legislators who are attempting to ram this down Oregon’s throat. It is certainly not fair minded for the force of the state to be used to beat people into the ground, fining and jailing them for exercising their moral convictions in the selection of their personal relationships and the management of their business dealings.”

Source: Constitution Party of Oregon Story picked up by WorldNetDaily here.


  1. Anthony Distler Says:

    “attempting to ram this down Oregon’s throat…”

    They’d like that too much.

    OOHHH! Now THAT’S mean spirited. Seriously though, I don’t know the full details of this bill, but since when has pushing for equality been an immoral thing? Oh, that’s right. Since the neo-conservatives SAID so.

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    The neo-cons are mostly pro-gay warmongers. The theo-cons are the ones who want to wage war on American citizens and their rectums.

    Strangely, these same people are against voluntary affirmative action programs. Hmm…. It should be illegal for a business to “discriminate” in the name of enhancing diversity, but it should be legal for them to discriminate based on the objects he places in his colon.

    Death to all theocrats.

  3. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yeah, it’s good that there are people who really oppose that bill in Oregon and not give lip service to it like the state GOP.

  4. Donna Says:

    Should we not all just get along? My lover and I are not christians yet we belive that everyone has the right to be what they want to be. I feel the Constitution Party of Oregon is simply evil.

  5. Trent Hill Says:

    You are misinformed.
    The government FORCING views (particularly anti-religious views) dont childrens throat through indoctrination.

  6. Joe Says:

    I agree Trent. I am not surprised that two lesbians would disagree with the Constitution Party, but Americans ought to be free to hire, rent and sell property and services for any reason they want, whether or not I agree with their reasons for refusing.

  7. Anthony Distler Says:

    So, you believe it would be alright for someone not to sell their property because the person trying to buy it was black?

  8. Joe Says:

    It depends on what you mean by “alright?” I personally would not do it, and I might not think much of a person who would, but I think that in America people ought to be free to hire, sell, rent to or not whomever they want to or not for any reason they want. I am aware that there are plenty of laws prosribing this right, I just don’t want any more of them and would prefer if the ones on the books were repealed.

  9. Cody Quirk Says:

    It depends on what you mean by “alright?” I personally would not do it, and I might not think much of a person who would, but I think that in America people ought to be free to hire, sell, rent to or not whomever they want to or not for any reason they want. I am aware that there are plenty of laws prosribing this right, I just don’t want any more of them and would prefer if the ones on the books were repealed.

    =Same here.

  10. SovereignMN Says:

    Ditto Joe and Cody. If and employer discriminates and only hires white men then that’s his business. It may be ignornant, shallow and dumb and it’s his business nontheless. The market will sort out whether it was a profitable move.

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    Anthony, for once. I agree with Joe.

    It isn’t morally correct to refuse to rent to someone who is black. But, a renter has the right to refuse service to anyone. You remember the “Right to refuse service” thing right? It’s a big libertarian talking point.
    For the record, I think its dumb. I’d rent to a lesbian, money is money. But if someone doesn’t want to,they shouldn’t have to.

  12. Anthony Distler Says:

    I’m not libertarian. I’m more and more becoming a lefty.

    Hey, you’re opinions are your opinions. I just don’t agree with them.

  13. Trent Hill Says:

    I didnt say you WERE a libertarian. In fact, I was indicating you were NOT.

    And what exactly is a “lefty”? A “Special rights for minorities” political activist?

  14. mark angelo Says:

    You, who claim to be so perfect, instead you are running from your own demons, while challenging everyone’s actions and condemning their every move. You persist on knowing the rights answers, arrogantly claiming the lord’s glory, behaving like a guardian for those you think are less than perfect. Does it make you feel better, to point out all of our faults and persist on having things your way, in spite of what we feel.
    What are you so afraid of, what are you running from? Live you life and let others live theirs. I know it is a foreign concept, but one you need to learn and learn well. You are not the appointed keeper of the morals or the laws. Were you a tattle tale as a young child, did it give you pleasure to squeal on your friends? I think you have a sickness and are in need of much anticipated help. Religion is but a cope out, a way to justify your actions, you blame it on our father, as if you knew him well. You need to learn compassion, and tame your inner anger, and learn about true love, instead of guilt and condemnation.
    Do you not realize that what you are doing is pushing people further from the truth and salvation? By making the relationship between our Holy Father a distant path and journey, you have made it impossible for many to come home. For once put down that bloody bible, and listen to your heart for there is where our father speaks to us and not through papers and ink blots No, don’t start your verse spewing I have heard them all before, do you not see the addiction and unhealthy behavior you have taken on? Forget what those so called prophets said back then and learn the true message of God.
    Be well and love with all your heart, preserve the earth you live on. Cherish your life with others and stop living full of guilt. Wake up, see what you are doing, it is not God who guides your soul, but the mere voices of the past who were angry, bitter souls.

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    Uh-oh. Third Party Watch Preacher.
    Am I sitting in a pew, or discussing politics?

  16. Anthony Distler Says:

    I this the time where we stand up an give an “Amen” or something? Because that was as close to a “sinners in the hands of an angry God” type speech I’ve seen in quite some time.

    Trent, I’m sort of on the left side of the political rhelm. I don’t know if sticking up for minority rights classifies as being a left-winger, but I know my stance on gay rights does.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    I don’t understand what “gay rights” means? Does it mean special priveleges?
    Because these gay people are being denied the write to petition. Only room and board. And they’re being denied it by private individuals. Same as a renter can deny me room and board because im male, or white, or christian, or Irish. It’s a private matter.

    Ya, it was quite arrogant of TPW Preacher to assume he knows anything about my spiritual positions. But he was QUITE Jonathan Edwards-esque.

  18. globalist_elitist Says:

    You don’t have to be a “lefty” to think that it should be illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of non-market values in market economy transactions. You have to be a capitalist. That’s all.

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    OH MY GOSH! GE is holding anti-capitalist views.

    No GE, the government is FORCING renters to rent to gays,lesbians, and transexuals. PRIVATE BUSINESSMEN GE.

  20. Cody Quirk Says:

    Gay Rights you say?

    More like Gay Supremacy!

  21. SovereignMN Says:

    GE, which is it going to be? Does the government have the right to tell a private business/individual what he/she can permit in their domain or don’t they?

  22. globalist_elitist Says:

    If you are open for business in the public sphere, there are some rules by which you have to play. Segregation and racial/gender discrimination are not capitalist values; they are impediments to growth and inhibited our economy for the decades that they were so openly practiced. The productivity sacrificed, the talent squandered, etc. Anti-discrimination laws are no different from child-labor laws and other minimal protections that are part of a minimal, pro-growth legal framework. Capitalism is not the complete absence of regulation - there is no capitalism with zero regulation. Courts, intellectual-property law, and other rules are needed in order to foster growth.

    You cease being a “private” individual when you enter the market. You can have your private racist club. But when you enter the world of capital, you need to limit your discrimination to market-based values. “I’m not hiring this person because of his work history,” “I’m not renting to her because of her credit,” etc. These are legitimate forms of “discrimination” - they are market-based discrimination.

  23. SovereignMN Says:

    “You cease being a “private” individual when you enter the market….
    “But when you enter the world of capital, you need to limit your discrimination to market-based values.”

    You are assuming that market-based values are void of discrimination. But despite your desire for such a utopia has never existed, nor will it ever. The market is filled with people of all kinds of various biases, preferences and stereotypes. Businesses are designed to cater to a specific target market and every target market, whether you like it or not, has their biases.

    Christians who want to buy Christian books are going to want a Christian bookstore where the clerk isn’t a satanist. But according to your logic the Christian bookstore owner must hire the satanist because he “ceased being a private individual” by opening a shop.

    So a Christian bookstore MUST hire a satanist, the Christians stop coming to the bookstore, the business closes, the business owner and the satanist worker go hungry. How does this promote capitalism?

  24. Anthony Distler Says:

    Gay Supremecy? What are you talking about? I’m just looking for people to finally look past homosexuals as homosexuals, African Americans as African Americans, Jews for Jews, and just look at all of us as people. Apparently we’re still a long ways off.

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    Anthony, but that is a private matter. Its a matter of public-consumption. The government should not be enforcing those moral standards.
    While I agree that a renter should rent to a gay person,because his/her money is just as good. It is his right to “refuse service” to anyone that he pleases. This includes because he personally just does not like someone.

    No. When I enter the market, I am still a private individual. If I want to sell Satanist Audio tracts to a Christian audience, I can. I won’t make any money, but its still my right.

  26. Anthony Distler Says:

    But some of the reason why civil rights were fought for back in the 60’s is because the government did not protect African Americans from being discriminated in the face of the market place. And while people would say that it’s wrong and racist to refuse to sell anything to a black person, and would more then likely take such a case to court, when it comes to homosxuality there seems to be a bit less outrage when it comes to homophobia.

    Don Imus said some stupid remarks about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team, and while the remarks can not be defended, it was said in about a one sentance form and was brief. The fall out, however, it huge and may cost him his career. Stephan Marbury (I think it was him) went on a huge tirade about how he hates homosexuals, and was hardly talked about.

    I think the biggest reason is because the African American community had Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, civil rights leaders who stand up against stuff like that. On the other hand, the homosexual community has Rosie O’Donald and Richard Simmons, and lets face it, that’s not who you’re gonna want representing you. The homosexual community does not have a leader to stand up for them, and therefor they’re easier to push around.

  27. Trent Hill Says:


    Wrong. The Government started fighting for civil rights because black children were not allowed to attend GOVERNMENT schools of the same quality as white children. They could not vote as easily. They could not get government grants as easily. They sometimes paid higher taxes. It was because of GOVERNMENT descrimination that the GOVERNMENT intervened. It was not because they were being descriminated against in the market place.

  28. Anthony Distler Says:

    But they posted by sitting in at a privately owned diner. You don’t think private business discrimination had anything to do with it?

  29. Trent Hill Says:

    Nono. I agree that DESCRIMINATION in the private sector was a big reason for stirring up support in congress (And across the country), but it wasn’t real reason for the government intervening. Also, that was widespread. Hundreds of business owners refused to let blacks eat in their establishments. Whereas there are only a few renters refusing to rent to gays.

  30. Anthony Distler Says:

    The government interviening, yes. But not the origional onset and media coverage.

  31. Cody Quirk Says:

    I stand by my words.

  32. globalist_elitist Says:

    No. The Christian bookstore may “discriminate” on any basis that is relavent. It may not discriminate on the basis of religion, except where religious knowledge is important. A non-believer with the adequate knowledge should not be discriminated against - it is illegal to ask someone’s religion in the hiring process or to fire someone based on their religion (or lack thereof). But a Christian bookstore owner would be justified in not hiring a Satanist based on a “Satanic appearance,” a lack of necessary knowledge, poor customer relations, etc.

    There are some jobs in which religion would clearly be a legitimate factor. If you were hiring a priest, for example. Perhaps even the religious bookstore would be a good case. Regardless, if you did not hire a Satanist and he took you to court, are you so diluted to think that he would win? He would have to prove that you only did not hire him because he was a Satanist, when there could clearly be 100 other factors in play. The best way to not get sued is to not inquire about the religion, race, sexuality, etc. of your hirees. They are none of your fucking business, you control-freak nanny statist.

    Who says you cannot sell Satanist audio tracts to a Christian audience? Where is the illegal discrimination in doing so?

    BY THE WAY - it was Tim Hardaway, not Stephon Marbury.

  33. SovereignMN Says:

    GE says: “They are none of your fucking business, you control-freak nanny statist.

    Resorting to name-calling and profanity, a sure sign that you lost the argument. Thanks for the laugh. The fact that you call me a control-freak statist is hilarious when you are the one who is trying to mandate to every business owner what his/her hiring practices should be. In a previous thread you seemed to value diversity. Yet here you are trying to make every business owner have to use the method of hiring.

    Businesses are someone’s property, an extension of their home. When a visitor comes to someone’s house and the owner is considering allowing them entry, he can use whatever discrimination tactics he desires to make his decision. Business is the same. It’s the owner using his property to generate income. If the owner wants to only have white people, blonde people, straight people or left-handed people work for him on his property then that is his right.

  34. Anthony Distler Says:

    But GE makes some great points. When you’re hiring someone, you can not ask their religion or their sexual orentation.

    Nor should they.

  35. SovereignMN Says:

    Remember, I’m not saying people SHOULD. I’m just saying they have a right to if they wish.

    If you allow people to do it the market is going to sort it all out. People who are bigots and only hire certain races/creeds are going to miss out on a lot of qualified people and probably go out of business.

    If you allow the government to dictate the hiring policies of businesses then the next step is to let them dictate the # of hours people work, the wages you pay them, etc.

  36. Trent Hill Says:


    How is asking my employees religion (when I own a christian bookstore) in ANY way make me a statist? It has nothing to do with the government at all, and FAR more to do with my personal preferences. Rather, you are the one supporting the nanny-state. You want the governent to FORCE me to hire the Satanist as a worker, or hire a black person for my private law firm, or rent to a gay person. All of those things are personal transactions. And If I prefer not to work with certain people,that is legitimate. It doesn’t have to be based on market based reasons, because this is not a Government institution—it is my private endeavor which I used my own money to create.

  37. globalist_elitist Says:

    Your business is not an “extension of your home.” Your home does not have an OPEN sign on the door, does it?

    Legalized racial segregation is anti-growth. Just read the first chapter of conservative Shelby Steele’s WHITE GUILT to see what I mean. Productivity is squandered as members of one racial class are forced to labor in pursuit of accomodations. Talent is squandered as members of another racial class are barred from certain professions.

    The personal and the economic are not the same. That’s why the World’s Smallest Political Quiz has two axise. In the realm of the personal, liberty is absolute. In the realm of economics, the goal is pro-growth policies. Legally condoned segregation in the economic realm is a prescription for economic stagnation. Thus it can be attacked from a economic standpoint. Moral matters are private matters, but economic matters are public because no man is an economy to himself.

    As for “making decisions for business owners.” That’s laughable. I’m saying that current laws that forbid non-market-based discrimination are legitimate and good. This is just part of the legal framework of capitalism. Employers can make any choices they want - they just have to have capitalist reasons, not collectivist ones, for making those decisions.

  38. Anthony Distler Says:

    I, as an employeer (I’m not an employeer, but suspend disbelief for a second) am not allowed to ask what religion someone is in the midst of an interview. That is the law, simple as that. Now, a person can be fired if their personal views endanger the members of the company. For instance, if a worker tends to jump up and shout “Allah Be Praised” every 10 seconds, that person can be fired for being disruptive of the work space. But just because that person is Muslim does not give the employeer right to not hire them.

    It’s part of the discrimination laws. I would hope that would apply for homosexuals as well.

  39. globalist_elitist Says:

    Unfortunatley, it does not apply to homosexuals. It should. But it does not. At least not at the federal level and not in most states.

    You have to realize, Anthony, that these people actually believe that it should be legal to hang a “White’s Only” sign in front of your coffee shop, and to only serve white customers. They think it is a barbaric act of agression for the government to prohibit such practices. They think that racism in the public sphere of employment and accomodations is a god-given right that the government has no authority to interfere with. And when I say “these people,” I mean not only the CP but also the vast majority of the LP. Meanwhile, even 90% of Republicans do not believe this, and this is just one of the many reasons that the LP - the supposed moderate or centrist pro-business party - will NEVER catch on. It has been hijacked by a group of Mises/Rothbard/Rand devotees who know nothing of Smith, Ricardo, or Mill, and think that Atlas Shrugged is the Bible. The CP? They think the Bible is the Constitution. They’re both anti-American collectives and that’s why they’ll never meet with the American public’s approval.

  40. Cody Quirk Says:

    If you don’t care for their race or religion you can simply reject their application and not hire them. And if they ask you why, you simply lie about it and say nothing at all.

    That’s how some bigoted employers usually operate, and it’s hard to prove.

  41. Trent Hill Says:

    An apartment complex doesn’t have an “open”sign either.
    So since Business’ are not an extension of the home, GE, a police officer does not need a warrant to search the place of business, Right?

    While I don’t think its prudent of someone to hang a “white’s only” sign in front of their coffee shop, nor do I think it’s smart, it IS their right. They have the right to refuse service to ANYONE or ANY grounds. Unless it is a public institution,that right still holds.

    But why use the force of government here GE? Sit-ins, protests, boycotts are all FAR more effective in swaying public opinion. Also, the mere fact that an employer is limiting his sales options and employer options, and therefor not reaping the full benefits of the market, will eventually come back to bit him. If he uses such openly racist tactics, he will not be met with approval (yes, even in the south). In fact, in my hometown, Denham Springs Louisiana there was a small coffee shop which had to close after the owner made a racist statement on Television. He got blacklisted basically. No one went there, the place got boycotted, I personally sat outside the place alongside a throng of 35 or so people who were protesting his racism.

  42. SovereignMN Says:

    Nobody mentions that these “anti-discrimination” laws are the reason why there are so many lawsuits against businesses and corporations. Just try to get fired from a company these days. It’s extremely difficult because nobody wants to face a lawsuit and the bad publicity that comes with it.

    This causes employers to either hang onto non-productive employees or fire them and risk spending their money defending themselves from tons of frivilous lawsuits.

    The legal fees that employers must pay to answer each lawsuit then gets passed onto the consumer. Or if the non-productive employee is retained then the consumer receives an inferior product.

    This is not good capitalism.

  43. globalist_elitist Says:

    Cody - You are correct. If they want to go that route, they can. But what they can’t do is advertise their bigotry, which creates an atmosphere of hostility that is very damaging. Closeted bigotry by a business owner is relatively contained and affects only the business itself - in a negative manner, of course.

    Trent - The sit-ins, protests, etc. are a waste of energy. The personal and economic realms are not one in the same, and while I’m not sure of the warrant requirements for businesses vs. personal residences, one major difference is that I can just walk in to a business, whereas I cannot just walk in to your home.

    SNM - Please. It is not hard to fire people. If you think it is, then you have a real disconnect with the economy. This is not France (thank the imaginary God). Most employees are at-will, which means that they can be fired for no reason whatsoever - so long as the reason is not racial, etc. Where are all of these lawsuits? When has a black employee ever sued, say, McDonalds for racial discrimination and won? How many blacks do you think are going to get fired from McDonalds this year? Hundreds? Maybe thousands? Where are the suits? No lawyer will take them because they cannot win. The employees are being fired for reasons that have nothing to do with race, and as Cody points out, there are probably numerous racial firings, passovers for promotions, non-hires, that are disguised as legitimate.

    This is just more of the “woe is me, the white man is oppressed” brand of anticapitalism being peddled so aggressivley by the Hard Right these days.

  44. Trent Hill Says:


    Bull. You CANNOT just walk into my business. Its my private property. I own the property, I own the building. I own everything there.
    And if I remember correctly, you praised the Jefferson Republican Party’s boycott. Then when you found out it was going to be government enforced…called them fascists. Fascist.

  45. SovereignMN Says:

    “This is just more of the “woe is me, the white man is oppressed” brand of anticapitalism being peddled so aggressivley by the Hard Right these days.”

    LOL. Where do you come up with this?

    “It is not hard to fire people. If you think it is, then you have a real disconnect with the economy.”

    I happen to work for a Fortune 500 company. In my 10-plus years here I have seen layoffs due to budget cutbacks and I’ve seen firings due to illegal activity. I have never seen a firing due to incompetence, unprofessional conduct, etc. Instead what will happen is HR will hold countless meetings and the employee winds up getting transferred to a different department where they spread their cancer.

    5 years ago while managing a project I discovered that one of the employees was intentionally sabotaging the project in order to create a crisis where he could ‘save the day’. I had irrefutable proof, incriminating testimony from others and I documented it all thouroughly. I submitted it all to my superiors, who also thought it was a fireable offense. The solution: Take him off the project and ship him to a different area.

  46. SovereignMN Says:

    “one major difference is that I can just walk in to a business, whereas I cannot just walk in to your home.”

    Try to walk into Microsoft. Try to walk into the plant of your local energy company.

  47. globalist_elitist Says:

    I did not praise their boycot. I “praised” their not running to the government to regulate financial services - until I found out that that was what they were doing.

    Good point, RE: Microsoft, etc. I was thinking primarily of retail businesses with the “Whites Only” type of signs. If you want to fight over whether or not companies should be allowed to discriminate against racial minorities in their hiring, promotion, etc., we can have that argument. But are you conceding that they should not be allowed to in terms of public accomodation?

    The points that SMN is making are valid, but you are blaming the wrong culprit. The real culrpit is the collectivist attitude that we Americans “deserve” jobs. This is best embodied by the nationalist protectionists in the CP. They want to turn the U.S. into France.

  48. SovereignMN Says:

    “But are you conceding that they should not be allowed to in terms of public accomodation?”

    Not necessarily. I will say that the government cannot discriminate in terms of public accomodation. I’d go further to say that I would support the government mandating that anyone who receives a contract from them must not discriminate in terms of accomodation. This would be energy companies, cable companies, garbage haulers and the like. Although I wouldn’t necessarily apply it to the hiring practices. For contracts such as these it’s the governments job to find the best company for the community regardless of who/how they hire.

  49. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed. I would support measures through which,any business who recieved funds from the GOVERNMENT to operate could not discriminate. However, a private business is just that, and is some kook doesn’t wanna sell his candy to the Jews. That is his business…I have Jewish relatives. They’re rich.

  50. globalist_elitist Says:

    I stand by my position that the personal realm is the personal realm, but the business realm is one of the larger economy. Personal freedoms and “economic freedoms” are not the same thing, which is why two-dimensional political axise are better than one dimensional ones. The government’s job is to (a) protect our civil liberties, which are inviolate; and (2) foster a pro-growth econonmy. #2 is not achieved by “no regulation, no taxes, etc.,” but instead by MINIMAL regulation, MINIMAL taxation, etc. Regulations should exist to foster growth, not to punish success. And anti-racial-discrimination regulations are, in my opinion, pro-growth. The moral dimension is irrelavent when it comes to economics. The only morality of merit is that of non-aggression in the personal realm. The only economic morality is “is this pro growth”? I’m sure we disagree here, so there is nothing more to be said.

  51. globalist_elitist Says:

    Points of agreement so we can end the debate:

    (1) The federal government should not give business to employers who discriminate.

    (2) This includes preference for traditionally disadvantaged races/genders.

    (3) The federal government should do LESS contracting, period. This trumps point #2.

  52. Trent Hill Says:


  53. SovereignMN Says:


  54. Audio adrenaline hands and feet hand job perfect lady sonia english handjobs Says:

    Audio adrenaline hands and feet hand job perfect lady sonia english handjobs

    Tags audio adrenaline lyrics i don& ;t censor me extended play remixes out of print in stock free audio adrenalin…

Leave a Reply