Posted on 05/30/2014 1:51:29 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
DENVER (AP) — Colorado's Civil Rights Commission on Friday ordered a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding his religious objections to the practice did not trump the state's anti-discrimination statutes.
The unanimous ruling from the seven-member commission upheld an administrative law judge's finding in December that Jack Phillips violated civil rights law when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. The couple sued.
"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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I wonder what the secret ingredient is? I bet it ain’t hash butter.
They claim it under incorporation laws. That’s why I pounded so hard on interpreting the Roberts Obamacare decision. It’s just flat-out where this battle is actually being fought, and there’s no way around it. It’s HOW the Rats are getting away with ALL their crap.
Note how the self-deceiving activists on the commission are watering down 1A protected religious expression by referring to them merely as “his” religious objections. As much as I reference specific constitution-related material in my posts, referencing statements by both well-respected founders and justices, it is not unusual for the person that I’m addressing to regard these third-party statements as “my” opinion. Again, this is self-deception on part of person I’m having discussion with imo.
As previously noted on FR, what these pro-gay activists are doing is wrongly using government power to violate the 13th and 14th Amendments to promote their agenda. More specifically, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from making laws, regulations and ordinances which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated freedoms, the 1A freedom of religious expression in this case. And since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, the power-abusing pro-gay activist, are clearly wrong concerning this issue imo.
Also, thanks to other freepers who pointed this out, and taxation issues, jury duty and conscription issues aside, the 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, which is arguably the direction that this is going.
Finally, note that it takes just a few paragraphs to get people up to speed on the unconstitutional aspects of this issue. The problem, sadly, is that since parents are evidently not making sure that their children are being taught how constitutional rights work, the consequence is the following. People like this baker get in trouble with respect to not being able to articulate their constitutional rights when getting harrassed by activists.
For the sodomites, he should just sell them one of those horrendous cakes from the grocery store deli where the frosting tastes like ink...
Yep, because corporations, and corporate administrative law, is inhuman BY DEFINITION.
And that's why human arguments lose in court.
I prefer, “Consume feces and expire, matriphiles”... or in this case “Coprocleptomaniacs”.
That's really a perfect solution for our homofascist society.
“Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission on Friday ordered a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples,”
Read that a few times and ponder how frigging insane this country has become.
Waiting for a Jewish baker to be required to make a Nazi/SS cake. That is not the same thing as not serving them a cake already baked. I see comments like “...then Christians shouldn’t own a public business”. Just wow...I don’t think they hear the words coming out of their mouths.
I was just thinking you could add non-harmful but obnoxious ingredients. Horseradish instead of coconut. Salt instead of sugar. That would do it.
The 14th Amendment deals with incorporated entities ONLY. otherwise it would have to be thrown out for contacting previously established constitutional rights. This was a huge issue when the 14A arrived. Read up on the Slaughterhouse Cases and related materials to see how SCOTUS parsed the issue.
As a result, the 14A allowed the contextual use of the word “rights” for the actual operative concept of corporate privilege.
That confusion is the root of the conceptual misunderstanding of what the hell the courts are doing to this day.
It won’t matter. Many liberals are anti-semitic.
Aaaargh
contacting = contradicting
damn autospell
I'd imagine the baker would use a secret ingredient that would taste yummy, even familiar, to the lovely couple.
If he’s forced to make the cake, is it possible he might do a botched job of it? I don’t believe the order was to make something they liked.
The (L) in me says (presumes): when one needs to ask gov’t ‘permission’ to run a business (aka ‘business license’). Same as traveling in ones own vehicle (aka ‘driving’) or get married or...
I mean, we can’t have just ANYONE baking cakes, or cutting hair, or home decorating....now, can we?
Personally I can’t understand why anyone would want a cake from someone who doesn’t want to make it for you. As the saying goes, never piss off the people who handle your food.
Of course the real reason isn’t that they want a cake. They want to force people to accept them.
I see what you did there. :-)
I was thinking more along the lines of way too much or too little sugar. If they complain, you tell them “I did my best, as you know, there are 12 other bakeries within 5 miles of here, but you insisted on me. If you weren’t happy I will understand if you use someone else next time and I won’t blame you if you tell all your friends down at the gay bar.”
I’d appeal all the way to the SCOTUS, and if I lose, I’d fold up shop.
They are figuratively forcing their agenda “down our throats”. In a few years they will be doing it literally.
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.