Question
where did the homosexuals finally get their cake made ???
This is the same court that approved gay “marriage”.
There are still only three conservatives on the court.
Unless 2 more are added before this case is heard, I doubt you are going to like the outcome.
Do not hold your breath for this one. Kennedy and Roberts voted for gays in the birth certificate case.
Marriage is none of the feds friggin’ business. Marriage is strictly a personal and state issue, not a federal issue. The Constitution gives the feds no authority to interfere with marriage at all.
People can always get a cake made elsewhere.
If a homosexual came in and wanted to buy a cake, nobody would say anything.
It’s when they want an event catered the owner doesn’t condone that they run into trouble.
Big events are planed far ahead. So order far ahead from another provider. Certainly there must by many businesses owned and operated by the 79% of U.S. Citizens that are homosexuals. (as if)
Owners should be able to say, I appreciate your business for general things, birthdays, and some other events, but weddings or other events we cannot endorse, we cannot serve you.
GET OVER IT!
I thought this issue was settled with the below ruling. I thought the 2015 gay marriage ruling did a sufficient rewrite of our Constitution to exclude equal legal protection for the believers in classical Christian thought.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”. Such language severely restricts religious freedom by excluding “free exercise thereof”.
The term “speech or expression’ seems an innocuous expansion of the First amendment. However, “expression” enables a nearly unbounded multi-billion dollar pornography industry.
I then saw this country departing so far from first principles that a woman could express herself in the adult film industry, but could not operate a bakery and exercise her religious convictions by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Formal End to Judeo-Christian America
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/06/30/the-formal-end-to-judeochristian-america-n2018986/page/full
Wayne Cordeiro
https://www.facebook.com/pastorwaynecordeiro/posts/10153325310351210
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
If the court compels the guy to bake the cake, religious liberty for individuals in this country will die. Afterwards, only religious institutions will be considered “covered” by the 1st amendment.
Everywhere is freaks and hairies / Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity.
This means that Justice Kennedy will not retire.
Kennedy will hang around just long enough to vote against the Christians. He’s a stinking bigot.
With all due respect to mom & pop, please consider the following.
The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called LGBT “rights.”
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had officially clarified that 14A applies only those rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect to the states.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
So if parents were making sure that their children were being taught the significance of the states ratifying enumerated personal rights to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights a famous example, then cases concerning politically correct, constitutionally unprotected LGBT rights, for example, wouldn’t be making it to the Supreme Court imo.
I wouldn’t be surprised if non-indoctrinated school children would be able to argue the following points against fictitious “constitutional” gay rights, these points borrowed from a related thread.
———
Regarding politically correct gay “rights," note that the Founding States made the Constitution’s Clause 1 of Section 10 of Article I to prohibit themselves from establishing privileged / protected classes.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphasis added]".
But this is what misguided, low-information, pro-LGBT activist state officials are effectively doing with respect to pushing politically correct LGBT “rights” imo.
Also, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment, they prohibited themselves from abridging the freedoms that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect, so-called LGBT “rights” not among those enumerated rights.
”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.”
So, misguided, LGBT activist states are not only probably violating the Nobility Clause, but also violating the 14th Amendment imo.
In fact, patriots who value 1st Amendment-protected religious expression should note that Acts 22:25-29 indicates that Paul claimed his protections as a Roman citizen to save himself from being flogged.
Finally, consider that another major problem related to constitutional rights is this. Regardless that Congress has the 14th Amendment power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress just sat on its hands during the lawless Obama Administration while several states abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of religious expression and speech.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”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 [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Unless you think the court will strike down all anti-discrimination statutes I wouldn't get too hopeful.