Posted on 06/05/2018 9:06:55 AM PDT by Liberty7732
The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its opinion on a highly anticipated case regarding the right of a baker to refuse to design and create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony based upon his religious convictions. However, for the SCOTUS, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom, but one of unjust government discrimination.
Jack Phillips, a practicing Christian, often refused to design and create baked goods based upon his religious beliefs. His store was closed on Sundays and other Christian holidays, he refused to create or design desserts for Halloween, and he refused to make desserts that contained alcohol. Phillips did not refuse to serve the same-sex couple who later filed a complaint. He only refused to design and create a cake for their wedding. He remarked that he would be happy to design and create cookies, birthday cakes, shower cakes, or brownies — just not a wedding cake due to religious objections.
The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the commission, after several hearings, decided that Phillips violated Colorado’s public accommodation laws by refusing to create and design this wedding cake for the same-sex couple. The Colorado commission did not accept Phillip’s defense of religious conviction.
Members of the commission, on record and as justification for their decision, mocked Phillip’s beliefs and compared his religious convictions to slavery and to the Holocaust. The Supreme Court found in favor of Phillips in a 7-2 opinion, based particularly on the statements of the Colorado commissioners.
There are some very significant points that must be made to clarify this carefully written opinion. Because of the great public anticipation over this case, there will be a tendency to make more of what was said than was actually said, and mischaracterize the magnitude of this decision.
Not a Matter of Freedom of Religion The court did not render its opinion on the basis of religious freedom. They did not declare that private business owners are free to discriminate based upon religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, they said the opposite.
“It is the general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and public services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” (Page 9)
“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” (Page 10)
Phillips made multiple statements asserting his refusal to make the cake was based upon religious conviction. However, it seems the Court only references these objections for the purpose of condemning the Colorado commissioners’ apparent discriminatory statements voiced against Phillips. This Court never asserted that Phillips was justified in his refusal based upon his right to religious freedom.
It is not clear that this is an overall victory for private business owners or Christians to publicly maintain their convictions.
Clergy Cannot be Compelled The court took time to clarify that it should be “assumed” that “when it comes to weddings”, “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform that ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.” (Page 10)
It’s interesting that the Court feels that it should be obvious and therefore not questioned that a professional clergy maintains full right to expression of their freedom of religion, but a baker does not. It would seem that the court sees the possession and expression of fundamental rights like freedom of religion as inherent in a profession rather inherent to all persons.
It’s Not Freedom of Religion, It’s Freedom from Discrimination This Court did not declare that Phillips’ personal objections justified his refusal to bake this cake. Instead they took a safer and more politically correct approach by finding that the Colorado commissioners’ statements applied the Colorado public accommodation law in a discriminating and biased manner.
The Court says “the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” (Page 3) However, the government cannot use Phillips’ religious beliefs as the basis for the application of their laws.
Justice Kennedy points out that when commissioners on the Colorado commission made statements describing Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use,” and equating his refusal to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage to the acts of slavery and the holocaust, they began down the path of discriminating against him. In addition to these condemning statements, the Colorado commission had, at the same time, determined that three other bakers could refuse to bake cakes critical of gay marriage, contrary to their secular convictions, making clear their bias and discriminatory application of this otherwise “neutral” law.
The majority opinion determined that it was this discriminatory act by the Colorado commission that required the court to overturn this case. Again, for the majority opinion, this appears not to be a case of religious freedom of expression, but one of unjust government discrimination.
Gay Marriage Was Not Legal Yet The Court, almost in passing, also mentioned that Phillips’ may have been justified in his refusal to design and create this wedding cake, because Colorado had not legalized gay marriage yet. His refusal, at that time, was not only in compliance with State law, but also a refusal to participate in an illegal activity. Perhaps Kennedy added this point of fact as a way of publicly saying to business owners in States who have legalized gay marriage, you have no argument to withhold your services if State law compels service.
What About Freedom of Speech? There is one aspect of personal rights the majority opinion mentions but strangely never fleshes out: the matter of freedom of speech.
The majority court introduces the question: Is the government’s law forcing Phillips to design and create a cake contrary to his personal message, a violation of freedom of speech? But then, in what seems to be a lapse of concentration, the majority opinion never answers this question definitively. It isn’t until we get to Justice Thomas’ concurrence that we find a truly worthy discussion of this important element.
Thomas’ opinion on the matter of freedom of speech is so thorough and so supported by precedent it makes one wonder why the majority court refused to give this topic its due consideration. Justice Thomas points out that it is well within the history of the Supreme Court to support the expression of offensive beliefs in the name of freedom of speech. After all, he reminds us, if the burning of a flag or a 25-foot cross (Virginia v. Black), or designing and creating “a film featuring Klan members brandishing weapons and threatening to ‘Bury the niggers,’ (Brandenburg v. Ohio) are all protected speech, then surely designing and creating a cake ought to fit these categories as well.
By the terms laid out by Justice Thomas, this case should have absolutely been decided in favor of Phillips on the merits of freedom of speech. Why the majority court would introduce this element, and then not complete its thought on the matter is puzzling. Why the majority court would choose a single justification for their opinion when they could have had two compelling arguments is equally puzzling.
The Dissent One final matter worth discussing is the dissent written by Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor. Not surprisingly, Ginsburg feels that this case should have been decided in favor of the same-sex couple. However, her argument against the majority opinion is so weak it makes clear her bias.
She does not address the fact that gay marriage was illegal at the time Phillips refused to design and create the cake. She does not even broach the freedom of speech aspect. Instead she asserts that the biased statements of a few commissioners against Phillips, during a government hearing in judgment of Phillips, do not rise to the level of “hostility” toward Phillips and therefore cannot be the justification for overturning this case.
Apparently, Ginsburg believes in a lower standard of discrimination for government than private citizens by claiming that these clear and impermissible words of hostility placed on the record by members of the commission and used as justification for their decision were not an exercise of content discrimination, yet the baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, that was currently against the law, and violated his religious beliefs, was discrimination.
The federal funding is either unconstitutional or the strings attached are unconstitutional.
How about a request for a cake that says:
Celebrate The Sanctity Of Christian Marriage!
Can a baker refuse to bake that cake?
The so-called “Incorporation Doctrine”, called "counterfeit" by Constitutional Scholar Robert Bork, is the false premise the modern Supreme Court uses for 1-8 Amendment cases.
The 14A is actually one of three Post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments limited to reinstating ex-slaves as full citizens. The Left has twisted (as they always do) and used the 14A to give the feds sweeping powers never contemplated by the ratifiers of the 14A, which sweeping powers if contemplated would have triggered a massive debate among the ratifiers of 14A in 1868. There is NO record of ANY discussion about giving the feds these powers. Thus, there is no evidence to support anything other than the limited intent of the ratifiers of 14A to provide ex-salves full citizenship (badly expressed as the "privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens).
See the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, decided five years after the 14A was ratified and which precedent the Leftist Court has utterly ignored.
Over the last 100+ years, we have allow the Lying Left to illegally amend the Constitution ALWAYS in favor of MORE AND MORE government power to the point where the Left basically ignores the Constitution and law schools teach the Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land. However, the Constitution is ABSOLUTELY the Supreme Law of the Land over the feds (U.S. Const., art. IV, cl. 2).
A HUGE goal we patriots have is to reinstate the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, dismantling the 80%+ unconstitutional portion of the federal government, and restoring our Free Constitutional Republic.
This country has more pressing problems than cakes and fags. This should not be an issue. The left makes it an issue by design.
“The ONLY “government” the First Amendment points to is the Federal government, NOT state government.”
You obviously never took a civics class, read the Federalist papers, or studied history.
In no way does it make sense that the Congress cannot abridge free speech but the States can.
You’re ignorant and retarded.
You don’t know what YOU’RE talking about. The Constitution gives the US Supreme Court NO POWER to make national law.
1) The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution and all laws IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution (US Const., Art VI., Cl. 2). Any laws NOT in pursuance of the Constitution is invalid.
2) the Supreme Court does NOT make national law. National law is reserved exclusively to Congress (Id., Art. I, Sec. 1). The scope and power of federal courts including USSC is limited to the parties in individual cases and controversies (Id., Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1).
Hey stupid Toad - READ the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, stupid. The texts without comment refutes your stupidity.
You’re from Kali, aren’t you?
Only a moron can look history in the face and come to your conclusions.
I mean, it takes a real conspiracy buff type with the IQ of Africa to come up with the nonsense that you do.
The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights, the rights of very citizen, not the Bill of Federal Restrictions but the States can do Otherwise.
You are very typical the liberal moron.
“A HUGE goal we patriots have is to reinstate the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended,”
You are NOT a patriot!
A patriot is one that actually understands the US constitution and doesn’t apply his retarded conspiracy theory IQ to twist it into something no founder ever said it was to be.
You are the typical moron the left-wing claims conservatives are as they stereotype the rest of us with your retarded childish conspiracy nonsense.
We denounce you and your childish stupidity and ignorance.
You’ve never read the founding father’s statements on the constitution. Heck, you’ve never read the entire document. You only pick bits and pieces and distort their meaning to make yourself sound intelligent. A typical underachiever mentality.
The basic fundamental issue is that people who choose to sodomize others are NOT protected persons. In fact, they should be felons in a true “justice” (virtue) System based on Right Reason according to Natural Law (US Constitution). They strip dignity and meaning from other people and self-—and under American law, human beings are to never be used as a “means to an end” (Marxism/socialist/slavery/satanism). Only the true Christian worldview treated all people (even unborn) with dignity and respect....and no other virtue system is compatible with American jurisprudence.
We have to get back to Rule of Law, not this evil, Rule of Man which throws out Natural Law and Objective Truth (God) (our system of Just Law) for irrational, arbitrary “laws” which deny Truth (God), deny science, and deny Reality/culture/traditions, etc., which Just Law can NEVER do.
We have to remove “justices” who throw out our Constitution-—but we haven’t yet. People like Ginsberg need to be in prison for TREASON—and so does Kagan and the other Lucifereans on the court where Lucifer is their supreme (irrational) ‘law’ and where they ignore and throw out our Supreme Law.
If Kennedy could have found a way to rule against Jack Phillips he would have. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was too blatant with their disdain of Phillips’ religion. The message has been sent to future litigants: If you want Kennedy’s help supplanting religious rights with homosexual rights don’t be so damn obvious about it.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You are another sniper who hides, disrupts, uses irrational ad hominems and non-sequiturs to deflect off the subject matter and hijack a discussion or a thread. You bring NOTHING to the table. you hide and don’t reveal what you’re stand for and the rationale behind your ideas, almost certainly because you have no ideas or rationale of your own. You just take pot-shots at others and then hide. What’s the difference between you and a troll? AFAIC you’re a Troll Toad.
You are espeically toxic there Toad. One of those poisonous toads.
Get lost Troll Toad.
I respectfully disagree.
First, the 14th Amendment (14A) clarifies that Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of 14A.
"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."
”… which sweeping powers if contemplated would have triggered a massive debate [??? emphasis added] among the ratifiers of 14A in 1868."
"Massive debate" is an understatement. The northern states forced the southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment. The spoils of war.
In fact, let's call the original constitution, drafted partly to insure domestic tranquility, but which didn't make it beyond the Civil War imo, Constitution I.
Agreeing with you that Section 1 of 14A is now being interpreted differently from what its drafter's had intended, let's call the post-Civil War constitution with its then new 14A Constitution II.
I'm not sure what version of Constitution we're on today, but I'll call the Woodrow Wilson 16th and 17th Amendment (17A) ratification constitution Constitution III and the FDR era constitution Constitution IV.
And why not call the Obamacare constitution Constitution V?
And if you consider that the national highway system, NASA too, were established without required constitutional amendments, then we're at least still below Constitution X.
But what about unconstitutional, political correct, 17A vote-winning federal civil rights? Maybe closer to Constitution X than I think.
"There is NO record of ANY discussion about giving the feds these powers."
Note that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of 14A, had clarified that the states had never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power make punitive civil laws until the states gave them such powers via 14A, such power limited to strengthening only those rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it [emphasis added]. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
In fact, in the post-Civil War case of Minor v. Happersett, the court reflected on both Section 5 of 14A and Bingham's words by clarifying the following. Although 14A didn't create new rights, it gave the feds the power to strengthen rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect, not that Congress has done a good job of that. (Post 17A ratification career lawmakers protect their voting records by letting the Supreme legislate such things from the bench.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Ugh. Why do we even have a category/concept of “protected persons”? What happened to all equal under the law?
“You just take pot-shots at others and then hide.”
I don’t hide. I just don’t argue with idiots.
You’re beyond nonsense.
Take a flying leap Troll Toad.
Indeed. This should have never made it this far. At the time of the refusal (2012) to create a special work (typically over $500) for the specific purpose of celebrating what the Bible nowhere sanctions but only condemns, the CO state constitution itself invalidated same-sex marriage and defined marriage as btwn male and female ( by amendment it specified marriage as being btwn opposite genders, thus agreeing with the Lord Jesus - Matthew 19:4-6) . Therefore the baker acted in accordance with both the Law of God and the highest law of the state, but who was prosecuted by a political commission.
And the Colorado Civil Rights Commission not only fined Jack, but ordered that if he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, he also had to do it for same-sex couples. Then the Commission—behaving like some communist dictatorship might—ordered Jack and his employees to go through a “re-education” program and provide quarterly compliance reports. -http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/11/breakpoint-get-facts-jack-phillips/
And a wedding cakes have traditionally been used to convey a message. A dress maker refusing to sell a wedding dress to a man for his homosexual wedding when even the state did not recognize such as a legal marriage would also be justified. Another somewhat proper analogy would be a black couple trying to contract with a Jewish baker to create a cake celebrating the anniversary of Luis Farrakan's Nation of Islam, and the baker refusing due to this being a perversion of the True God. Resulting in the baker being charged with discrimination against a minority based on race
And as regards complicity, see Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus
In order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal, and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime..
And this just in: Baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding: 'I don't discriminate '
6/5/2018, 9:59:19 AM · by SeekAndFind · 80 replies NBC News ^ | 06/05/2018 | Adam Edelman Jack Phillips maintains he would 'serve everybody that comes in my shop,' but that he wouldn't 'create cakes for every message.' The baker at the center of a Supreme Court ruling that he cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding told “Today” on Tuesday that he doesn’t “discriminate” against anybody and that he simply doesn't want to bake cakes “for every message” — saying that he would also refuse to create a dessert that insulted the LGBTQ community. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake in Denver, had argued that his cakes are works of art
But what is bigoted in the eyes of the Left is to agree with Scripture.
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.