Posted on 05/31/2014 2:51:34 PM PDT by NYer
Same-sex marriage is still illegal in Colorado but the state's civil rights commission ruled Friday that Jack Phillips has to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony.
The Daily Caller reports:
In 2012, Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakes in Lakewood, refused to sell cakes to Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple. Mullin and Craig were to be married in Massachusetts but wanted a cake for a reception at their home in a Denver suburb.It hardly makes sense. A state where same-sex marriage is illegal is forcing a baker to provide cake for a same-sex marriage. Legality has nothing to do with this. This is thuggery. Thuggery with lawyers.
As he had done with other same-sex couples in the past Phillips refused to sell the goods, saying that he is a devout Christian and doesn’t approve of same-sex marriage.
With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Mullins and Craig sued Phillips citing the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act. It bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex or sexual orientation. Though gay marriage is still illegal in Colorado, the commission cited the act in its ruling.
“I can believe anything I want, but if I’m going to do business here, I’d ought to not discriminate against people,” Commissioner Raju Jaram said, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Surrender the Social issues and one gets less freedom. The gay activists won’t be satisfied with marriage. Unfortunate there are some on the Right willing to sacrifice liberty to get the vote of 1% of the population.
I have heard the US Constitution trumps state laws...see gun control.
.
The courts will determine that to be harassment or hate speech or something.
Well, there’s that and drugging a person without their consent.
Ok, ok, ok...I am a bit confused here. How do they MAKE him bake a cake?
Do they throw him in jail if he refuses? This commission cannot do that. A judge must do that.
I would tell them to pound sand.
Bake the cake, but put a lot of laxative in it.
But they DIDN’T order him to bake a GOOD cake that looks GOOD did they?
Make the bakery Members Only then you can exclude whoever or whatever you want.
The Supreme Court has asserted the power to trump state laws despite the fact the power to do so is not delineated in the Constitution. Like Robert Bork and Justice Scalia I believe in the Constitution as written (original intent), not the “living” Constitution as interpreted at various points in time by 9 political animals in black robes.
The letter of the Constitution does not give Congress or the federal government the power to usurp state laws relating to speech, religion, assembly, and the press it only prohibits Congress from infringing on those rights. Despite the letter of the Constitution, the 9 political animals in black robes in our time have upheld the Patriot Act allowing Congress and the federal government to spy on American citizens and hold them without due process of law. This demonstrates the danger of allowing “interpretation” of what is clearly stated in the Constitution.
It is only a matter of time before the balance of power on the Court shifts completely, and permanently to a progressive majority. When that happens, it is almost certain the Court will interpret the term “militia” in the 2nd Amendment to mean the armed forces, national guard and law enforcement thereby removing the right to bear arms from the general population. We can also expect hate speech laws to be upheld by a progressive majority court as well as limitations on religious expression (particularly for Christians) and state control of speech on the internet and public airwaves.
Once a society moves from rule by the law as written to law as interpreted, the law will be manipulated to suit the agenda of the dominant political element.
Even though the Supreme Court has usurped the power to trump the decisions of state courts, in this particular case I can’t see the current Supremes ruling the baker’s religious convictions allow him to refuse to sell his wares to homosexuals. The politics of today being what they are.
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
A baker who was not friendly to the homo nazis, but was compelled to make a cake for them, might—let’s say—pee in the cake batter.
Make them sign a contract saying total damages will not exceed the cost of the cake and then make a mistake of using salt instead of sugar.
I wish we had more Jeffersonian logic and less Carroll insanity, but we have the addled mental lunacy of our rulers instead.
I’m thankful I won’t see the next decade of debauched intellect.
Beware of any post-FDR era Supreme Court decision which tests the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers. This is because when FDR's activist justices decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor in the early 1940s, they wrongly ignored that previous generations of justices had clarified the following about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers. The states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So the Court's PC decision in Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States needs to be overturned imo.
You create a corporation, you make a deal with the devil.
No one blinks over paying for a piece of paper that absolves you of personal responsibility for what you do.
No one wonders how it works. How that piece of paper has so much power.
It’s a contract.
You surrender your rights to the State, and in return the State indemnifies youf ro certain things, and repaces your rights with privileges.
And privileges are granted for the benefit of the State - not you.
Like I said, a deal with the devil.
And no one even acknowledges its existence.
Another pro-sodomy reporter or columnist doing his propaganda thing.
Paraphrasing reality to promote the pink Mafia.
What the hapless baker probably said was,
"saying that he is a devout Christian and doesn’t approve of same-sex marriage [being forced to do so would deny him the freedom to exercise the fundamental principles and tenets of his chosen religion".]
Big difference!
I agree on Wickard v. Fillburn.
The Court’s twisting of the Commerce Clause has turned it completely on its head.
LOL
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.