Posted on 08/15/2018 11:45:47 AM PDT by detective
Colorado is trying to compel the same baker who just won a Supreme Court case into baking a second cake that violates his religious beliefs.
Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Jack Phillips, who won a Supreme Court case in June, is once again being harangued by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for refusing to bake a cake with a pro-LGBTQ message. Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit late Tuesday night against the commission on his behalf, over the state’s second attempt to compel him to bake a cake with a message that violates his religious beliefs.
Two months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Phillips ought not to have been forced to bake a cake with a pro-LGBT message for a same-sex couple’s wedding, because the court found that the commission was overtly hostile to the baker’s religious beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
People in CO are trying to out-California CA, but that’s impossible.
Can’t this be solved with a food fight?
Yeah, it will reach them in about 8 years.
I’d really like to know who is paying this tranny to file the complaint.
Wouldn't that be the good'ole AMERICAN way to solve this issue ?????
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
A lawyer called to cake shop on the day of the SCOTUS decision.
He demanded a cake that turned from blue to pink to celebrate his transition from male to female. He then filed a complaint.
It was an obvious set up.
This 14th Amendment issue is glaring evidence that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress left over from the lawless Obama Administration is stubbornly refusing to do its constitutionally enumerated duty to make punitive laws to discourage state actors from abridging rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
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.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Patriots in all states need to come to the rescue of the Christian cake baker.
More specifically, patriots need to elect as many new patriot lawmakers to Congress as they can in the 2018 midterm elections, lawmakers who will commit to doing their job to make laws to discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated rights.
Pretty much describes todays dem party. So yes, it was predicted. I’d say not just apply to today’s perverts, but rather there is a cycle of behavior repetition through the ages.
hogg boy wants back in for another 15 milliseconds of slander that no real Person wants to listen to.?
Proposing ain’t passing
Before passing, it must be proposed, either by Congress themselves or the White House.
The question was asked what can the President do; he can propose a bill, he can push to speed up judicial appointments.
This Baker is not your run of the mill “cake baker” at the local grocery store. This guy’s cakes are “works of art”. As such they are protected speech.
I don’t understand why his answer isn’t just...”I am booked that day.”
I’ve asked this before, but i’ll Say it again: Why would anyone want to ‘force’ someone to make food? There is just too much than can go wrong during the process.
And again that’s all bully pulpit. His pushing hasn’t gotten Javanaugh through faster
WE the people MUST elect people with spine
This issue has been litigated. The Constitution was upheld. There doesn’t need to be a law.
What makes you think it needs to be paid?
They don't want the cake. They want to hurt him.
This is simple enough. A Coloradan Freeper should take the most egregious case to the attorney “Autumn”, and when he refuses to take the case, put the same pinch on him.
Insist that he represent you in an attempt to put a Religious Freedom Act on the Colorado ballot.
Insist that he represent you in an attempt to audit the CCRC through the Freedom of Information Act.
No disagreement. But it’s more than bully pulpit, it’s a formal draft of a bill transmitted to the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader.
USUALLY, the House or Senate will respond to a presidential proposed bill. In the case of Ryan, he blows it off.
We may expect then if Ryan is replaced by either Scalise or Jordan, that POTUS will be treated more respectfully.
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.