Kleins j Motion

8/18/2019 Kleins j Motion

1/37

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

23

4

25

6

7

28

29

3

3

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

4

4

4

43

BEFORE THE COMMISS IONER OF THE BUREAU OF

L B O R

N DINDUSTRIES

OF

THE S T T E OF O R E G O N

In th e Matter o f:

Oregon Bureau

of

Labor and Industries

on behalfo f RACHEL CRYER

Complainant

MELISSA KLEIN

dba SWEET

CAKES

BY MELISSA

and AARONWAYNE KLEIN individually

as an

Aider and Abettor

under ORS

659A.406

Respondents.

In

the

Matter

of:

OregonBureau

of

Labor and Industries

on behalfo f LAUREL BOWMAN CRYER

Complainant

MELISSA KLEIN

dba SWEET CAKES

BY MELISSA

and AARONWAYNE KLEIN individually

as an Aider

and

Abettor

under ORS

659A.406

Respondents.

Case No. 4 4-1 4

R E S P O N D E N T S

M O T I O N S

F O R

S U M M R Y J U D G M E N T

Oral

Argument

Requested

Case No . 4 4- 15

RESPONDENTS M O T I O N S FOR

S U M M R Y JUDGMENT

Oral Argument Requested

Page

1

RESPON ENTS

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JU GMENT

H E R E R T G G R EY

Attorney At Law

8

SW Griffith Drive, Suite 320

Beaverton,

OR

97005-8716

503 641-4908


2/37

1 Pursuant to OAR 839-050-0150 4), Respondents AARON

KLEIN MELISSA KLEIN

2 and SWEET CAKES

BY

MELISSA move for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no

3 genuine issue of material fact, and Respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as

4

follows

5 1. Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on all claims because the undisputed

6 facts demonstrate that neither complainant was denied services on account of their

7

sexual

orientation;

8 2. Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on all claims because ORS 659A.403,

9 659A.406 and 659A.409 cannot survive strict scrutiny analysis necessary to abridge

10 Respondents constitutionally-protected speech, religion and conscience rights under

the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions in that: a) the statutes are neither neutral laws nor

12 generally applicable; b) BOLI cannot demonstrate a compelling governmental

13 interest where it is undisputed that at the time of the alleged events, the official policy

14 of the state of Oregon expressed in Article

XV

§5a was that marriage was limited to

15 one man/one

woman

relationships, which

BOLI

as a state agency is estopped from

16 controverting; and c) the statutes are not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling

17 government interest because they do not employ the least restrictive means;

18 3. Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on all claims because ORS 659A.403,

19 659A.406 and 659A.409 unconstitutionally limit their rights to freedom of speech and

20 their freedom not to engage in government-compelled speech protected under the

21 U.S. and Oregon Constitutions;

age 2 - RESPONDENTS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

H E R E R T G G R E Y

Attorney At Law

48

SW

Griffith Drive,

Suite 3

Beaverton,

OR

97005-8716

503 641-4908


3/37


4/37


5/37


6/37


7/37


8/37


9/37


10/37


11/37


12/37


13/37


14/37


15/37


16/37


17/37


18/37


19/37


20/37


21/37


22/37


23/37


24/37


25/37


26/37


27/37


28/37


29/37


30/37


31/37


32/37


33/37


34/37


35/37


36/37


37/37

Documents

Kleins j Motion