Skip to comments.
Christian baker vindicated by SCOTUS back in court for not baking a gender transitioning cake
Washington Times ^
| August 15th 2018
| Alex Swoyer
Posted on 08/15/2018 7:24:38 AM PDT by Ennis85
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: Ennis85
My wife just told me about this. My first response is that the lawyer needs to put up or shut up. Once he gets surgically neutered, then he can ask about a cake.
Mike Farris and ADF is going to have fun with this one. He’s a brilliant attorney
41
posted on
08/15/2018 7:50:59 AM PDT
by
cyclotic
( WeÂ’re the first ones taxed, the last ones considered and the first ones punished)
To: Ennis85
This guy must live in a really weird neighborhood.
42
posted on
08/15/2018 7:51:40 AM PDT
by
cuban leaf
(The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
To: House Atreides
THIS nonsense is why we need LOSER PAYS. See how quickly the frivolous lawsuits vanish if this becomes law.
........................................................
This is why we need LESS LAWYERS in Congress. They’ll never vote out a money making scheme for themselves. Vite IN more business people who are sick and tired of paying lawyers’ exorbitant fees.
43
posted on
08/15/2018 7:51:47 AM PDT
by
Mollypitcher1
(I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
To: Ennis85
This was inevitable given that the Supreme Court declined to address this issue head-on the first time around. Other than in the concurrence by Gorsuch and Alito, the Court focused on the Commission's overt anti-religious bias during the state hearing,
not on the core issue of whether the baker had the right to refuse service.
So, someone filing a new Complaint/charge with the State of Colorado, and this issue coming up yet again, was predictable.
I suspect this is Kennedy's fault. He probably was unwilling to join a broader ruling, so Roberts could only get a majority by limiting the decision to the issue of bias at the hearing.
To: Tench_Coxe
Now its just malicious. One would think there would be repercussions to the attorney.
There very well could be, if the baker's counsel has the guts to ask for them, or if the judge is annoyed enough.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paperwhether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating itan attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
[ * * * ]
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.
[ * * * ]
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.
To: Shark24
Guess that live and let live thing that many years ago was all the gay community claimed they wanted was a lie. Surprise.
Give them an inch and they want a mile.
To: Ennis85
BULLSHIT! Tell the courts and everybody else to go to hell.
47
posted on
08/15/2018 7:57:56 AM PDT
by
TalBlack
(It's hard to shoot people when they are shooting back at you...)
To: Mollypitcher1
48
posted on
08/15/2018 7:58:01 AM PDT
by
Mollypitcher1
(I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
To: Ennis85
The removed organ can be put as a decoration on top of the cake. Now wouldnt that be special? (Sarc off)
49
posted on
08/15/2018 7:58:50 AM PDT
by
Vaquero
(Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
To: posterchild
Maybe a “fudge “ cake with a mental illness theme???
50
posted on
08/15/2018 8:00:45 AM PDT
by
hal ogen
(First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
To: ronniesgal
” ... and lots of nuts.”.
51
posted on
08/15/2018 8:04:11 AM PDT
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: trisham
ONLY PARTIALLY.
Their ultimate ‘goal’ is the TOTAL ‘normalization’ and ‘acceptance’ and eventually promotion of their perversions..........
Read ‘Brave New World’...................
52
posted on
08/15/2018 8:04:37 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(July 2018 - the month the world learns the TRUTH......Q Anon)
To: Mase
People celebrate this sort of thing with cake? Well-paid, and well-funded professional activists looking to create a media sensation and push a narrative do, yes.
53
posted on
08/15/2018 8:04:42 AM PDT
by
PGR88
To: Ennis85
Just curious - can’t read the article because the Washington Times wants me to whitelist it. However, I don’t have any ad blockers installed, unless something is running in the background in Firefox. Didn’t see that in the Firefox options.
Anyone know how to “whitelist” a website when you aren’t using an ad blocker?
54
posted on
08/15/2018 8:06:19 AM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
(Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
To: Red Badger
I read that in high school. I should read it again.
55
posted on
08/15/2018 8:06:30 AM PDT
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: Ennis85
Appears to be a
form of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) operation where the litigators are determined to sue this business into oblivion. Since the SCOTUS case was
decided on the very narrow grounds of obvious bias by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. With this case, the obvious tactic is to refuse to use any biased language and achieve the desired outcome of state denial of 1st Amendment rights based upon Civil Rights protections.
56
posted on
08/15/2018 8:07:14 AM PDT
by
SES1066
(Happiness is a depressed Washington, DC housing market!)
To: Ennis85
More LGBT-Mafia tactics. They believe if you are not celebrating their sin with them and promoting them.... you must die.
Parallels to Sodom and Gomorrah.... they still want to force their lifestyle on outsiders.
57
posted on
08/15/2018 8:10:35 AM PDT
by
VaeVictis
(~Woe to the Conquered~)
To: Ennis85
I cant abide how many important decisions in SCOTUS are based on the Chiefs desire to maintain collegiality among the justices, including those hell bent on destroying the Constitution. There was a majority that would have ruled on religious liberty grounds and settled this issue. Instead, roberts chose to go for the broader majority and have the ruling based on procedural unfairness before the rights commission. So we get to do this again because here are the zealots who want to crush anyone who disagrees with them
58
posted on
08/15/2018 8:11:26 AM PDT
by
j.havenfarm
( 1,500 posts as of 8/10/18. A FReeper since 2000; never shutting up!)
To: Mase
I don’t want to know how it is decorated.
To: Jagermonster
I don't see a hope at Rule 11 sanctions. First of all, the baker filed the federal lawsuit, and the state hasn't even responded yet. So there can't be any Rule 11 sanctions yet because the state hasn't filed a pleading.
Second, the state's actions to this point are the acts of a state commission, which are not subject to the rules of civil procedure because it is an administrative process, not a court process. So Rule 11 doesn't apply to the state's actions at all. Leaving that technical stuff aside.... Fact is, the Supreme Court's decision did not address the core issue of whether or not a baker could refuse to bake a cake that violated his religious beliefs. They ducked that core issue, and decided the case on the much narrower ground that there was bias at that particular Commission hearing.
So, Colorado just waited until someone else filed a new complaint. They then issued a new probable cause determination, and will schedule a hearing at some point. Nothing in the Supreme Court case precluded any of that.
What is needed is for a federal court to clearly recognize the right of the baker to refuse to bake that cake based on his religious beliefs, and that case has to make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Of course, it's possible that some case like that from another state is already winding it' way through the appellate process.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-124 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson