Posted on 04/25/2016 4:14:56 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
DENVER (CBS4)– The Colorado Supreme Court decided to let an appellate court ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination law when it turned away a gay couple stand by refusing to hear the case.
On Monday, the state Supreme Court let the lower court ruling stand.
Attorneys for Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, filed the appeal last fall. They argued the government shouldn’t force Phillips to violate his Christian beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at denver.cbslocal.com ...
Quite frankly didn’t see that coming.
Gay rights trump the constitution.
Churches are next.
Cowards.
Church bathrooms.
On to the Supremes!
“By refusing to hear the case.”
What is the ratio of appealed vs. heard cases anyhow?
Would the next legal step be the USSC, or a Federal circuit? Normally for things like this it is a Federal circuit, which heretofore has been pretty fair on 1st Amendment issues.
I think the gays spike the ball too soon.
On to the Federal circuit first, I’d think.
Most have no clue to the levity of the SCOTUS decision “legalizing homosexual marriage”. It really was the final nail in the coffin for this evil nation...
Personally, I don't care what sexual orientation anyone is, as long as they act appropriately and respectfully in public (gay or heterosexual). That said, this is just over the top litigation. I would have baked them the cake, and given them the contact info for purchasing whatever same-sex figurine decorations they wanted - and they could put them on themselves. This is just ridiculous, considering everything else we're dealing with as a nation.
From a related thread …
The referenced baker is paying the consequences for evidently not knowing his 14th Amendment (14A) protections.
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.
Regardless what pro-gay activist justices and judges want everybody to think about LGBT “constitutional” rights, gay “marriage” for example, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect such rights. And misguided, low-information state officials are unthinkingly violating Section 1 of 14A, imo, by using PC, constitutionally unprotected gay “rights” to trump constitutionally enumerated rights, the 1st Amendment-protected rights of religious expression and free speech in these cases.
Regarding business owners using 14A to protect themselves from misguided, pro-LGBT state officials and other likewise low-information LGBT supporters, note that Acts 22:23-30 indicates that Paul claimed his rights as a Roman citizen to save himself from being flogged.
Being against Discrimination is a moral judgement.
What gives them the right to impose their Morals?
You’re right, but with all the hanky-panky, it will end up with the Supremes where they’ll be backed into a corner. Hopefully, in the meantime Trump is elected and puts in someone worth being a Supreme.
They dumbed down civil marriage to be same as civil union and ordered the whole country to abide by that concept.
That said, the court oh so generously added that there would need to be balanced respect for religious rights.
This is a classic First Amendment freedom of expression issue. Even the court can and does hear the voters, like they heard the Obama voters today, may hear Trump voters tomorrow.
But that was not Paul’s only goal. It was also to press the issue. He was not refusing Caesar’s help there, fickle as it was.
Wasn’t there a similar case of a gay bakery that refused to bake a cake for a traditional marriage celebration? But in that case, the same court that ruled against the normal bakery, ruled for the pervert bakery.
I had never heard that incident, but if that was the case, it’s a clear indication of judicial activism and ignoring the equal rights clause.
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.