Posted on 02/07/2018 1:21:24 PM PST by markomalley
A religious baker recently won in court over a same-sex couple’s wedding cake. No, this isn’t the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, but in a similar lawsuit, lesbian couple Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio said bakery owner Cathy Miller refused to make their order. Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled Monday that Miller can continue to refuse service, pending the results of their upcoming trial.
The complaint stemmed from the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Lampe said Miller’s First Amendment rights trumped the California law. In denying the couple’s motion for a preliminary injunction, he drew a distinction between cakes already on display and cakes that are commissioned by a same-sex couple.
“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” Lampe wrote in the ruling obtained by Law&Crime. “The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”
He argued that Miller stands to lose more than the couple.
“The court finds that any harm here is equal to either complainants or defendant Miller, one way or the other,” he wrote. “If anything, the harm to Miller is the greater harm, because it carries significant economic consequences. When one feels injured, insulted, or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self-inflicted.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lawandcrime.com ...
The fang-tooth lezzies will try again in another location until they accomplish their goal of destroying anyone who has any belief in what’s right and wrong.
Example.....someone sends me an invitation and I don't want to go. Can they sue me? Of course not.
Now there's the photographer. Can they refuse? (to participate) According to this case, I'd say YES.
No one can be forced to take anyone as a client on a one to one.
If they come into a store, you have to sell them anything in the store.
It's also about involuntary servitude.
Compelling new artistic expression is compelling labor. It's quite different from refusing to sell a physical item that's already on the shelf. Or, if the artistic argument seems difficult, think of it as compelling someone to perform a unique personal service for their pleasure and to their specification, and possibly for an imputed price.
More like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
No idea where Kern County, but would be nice if this hack writer would actually mention where this story is from.
I guess at least he included a date, that’s rare anymore.
Sad that such a ruling is news.
Bakersfield, CA is the county seat of Kern County
It’s also about theft. The court implied that it would be alright to force the baker to sell a cake already baked and on display.
Gotta find a dyke in a black robe. See what happened in Oregon when a homophilic black robe declared the elderly couple pay a couple of queers a fine of $135,000 for refusing to construct a cake for sex offenders. The old couple, near retirement, were forced to cash our their retirement IRA to pay the fine and lawyer fees. The judge deserved a rope IMHO.
DITTO
>
It’s also about theft. The court implied that it would be alright to force the baker to sell a cake already baked and on display.
>
Correct. Typical Leftist ‘logic’ of splitting hairs: it wasn’t baked...yet.
“I didn’t discriminate, your Honor (as if that were a BAD thing to begin), I merely utilized my (long-standing) Right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.”
That died a long time ago with all the anti-discrimination laws.
"The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation [emphasis added].” —Unruh Civil Rights Act(If I understand the history of this law, I’m surprised that sexual orientation was an issue in the late 50s.)
Regardless that the law protects against religious and sex-related discrimination, it remains that since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect sex-related issues outside the scope of voting rights, evidenced by the 19th Amendment, that the judge is basically pointing out the following.
Constitutionally enumerated religious expression trumps non-enumerated sex issues outside the scope of voting protections.
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The main reason that pro-LGBT activist states have been getting away with harassing Christian business owners in the last few years is this imo.
Although the states have given Congress the 14th Amendment power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections, including religious expression, we're still stuck with a corrupt Congress left over from the lawless Obama Administration, Congress stubbornly refusing to make laws that protect constitutionally enumerated rights from abridgment by the states.
The remedy …
Patriots need to finish the job that they started when they elected Trump president in 2016.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the 2018 primary ballots who will protect constitutionally enumerated rights, and pink-slip incumbents by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.
Also, until the states wake up and repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of Alabama's special Senate election, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.
Hacking Democracy - The Hack
And also the birth place of Buck Owens.
“(If I understand the history of this law, I’m surprised that sexual orientation was an issue in the late 50s.)”
I remember the fifties, and it seems to me that the term and concept of “sexual orientation” was not invented until sometime in the seventies. Might actually have been the eighties.
Yes, the judge did deserve the rope. Too bad there isn’t a fund for the elderly couple to get another lawyer and go to court again and sue the the judge for denying them income in their old age and reverse the punishment.
OK, let us suppose that I am a building contractor and a
potential customer has sufficient funds for the construction of a home that said customer has designed. If I am asked to build, am I legally required to do so, such as, hay, bake this cake and decorate it thusly.
No....
No reason why the baker would object.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.