Posted on 12/06/2017 8:43:11 AM PST by pgkdan
Yesterday morning, I had the honor of attending oral argument before the United States Supreme Court. The case being argued was Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, commonly referred to as the "gay wedding cake case."
The case involves a humble Christian baker, Jack Phillips, in the sleepy town of Lakewood, Colorado, who received a phone call one day to create a custom wedding cake for two men attempting to marry each other. Phillips responded by inviting the couple to purchase any goods in his bakery while declining to create a custom cake for the celebration because his Christian values forbid him to promote an understanding of marriage that includes same-sex couples. Five years, a plethora of fines and penalties from the State of Colorado, and several boycotts of his bakery later, the state is still forcing Phillips to make custom cakes for these same-sex celebrations, and Phillips finds himself fighting in the nation's highest court for his First Amendment freedoms of speech and religious exercise. The couple who called Phillips ended up receiving their cake for free from a different baker. The cake was a replica of the rainbow flag to celebrate the gay rights movement.
***SNIP***
...Then Justices Kagan and Sotomayor administered a pop quiz, naming foods, art, buildings, and creative enterprises and demanding to know if the objects or general categories of study they posed are expression and, therefore, protected speech under the First Amendment. At one point, Justice Thomas covered his face with his full palm at the incomplete responses and failures to get to the relevant.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
In order to punish the baker, the judges will have to ignore evidence and guess at intent. All they know is that the baker refused to do cake for a same-sex wedding. In order to prove discrimination, they will have to guess it was due to the parties being gay. If it had been 2 straight men, they have to guess that the baker would have made the cake for them.
Why don’t gays ever go to Muslim bakeries?.................
After they left the cake shop...they cried together.
The rainbow flag....Was that what they asked Phillips for? I bet not.
Was this a set up by the gay community? Sure looks like it. Unlike Obamacare, the Supremes had better get this right...follow the Constitution on freedom of religion! Too bad Jack Phillips is not Muslim....
What is amazing is that we saw very little discussion of the free exercise clause of the first amendment which is right on point. This shows you the legal and institutional hostility toward Christianity in this country. The only conceivable “discrimination” in this case was directed against an event not against people - the baker acknowledged he would sell anything in his store to gay customers but he wouldn’t facilitate a gay wedding.
I’d make the cake, all right. It would be a complete disaster and ruin the whole wedding.
Folks would sing songs about how badly my cake trolled their stupid fookin wedding.
“Why don’t gays ever go to Muslim bakeries”
Perhaps the baker should rename his bakery, “Halal Bakery Shoppe”.
should the court side with government violating one’s rights for another’s that will leave no recourse for those who disagree with the government mandates. the jury box will have been taken away from us... leaving only the ammo box for us to utilize.
I believe it was.
Most wouldn’t recognize the connection to Islam.
Now, if he called it Mohammed PBUH Bakery...............
From what I’ve read, that’s exactly what they asked for. I’ll try to find a link for that.
So much for the Honeymoon.
[[The solicitor-general framed the issue in the case: whether the state may compel business owners to express certain viewpoints – here, a viewpoint fundamentally against one’s religious convictions. ]]
That is the whole crux of the argument right there in a nutshell- all the other ‘promoting’ ‘artistic expression’ etc has nothing to do with the case-
Are we a nation that forces religion to act in ways that violate their religious belief or not?
The counter argument of course will be “Yes we do prevent some expressions of religious beliefs for certain issues” (ie: Child sacrifice is not protected and illegal- drugging and kidnapping people for religious purposes, keeping people of a different color out of your congregation isn’t legal is not legal etc-)
The question is, how far into religious beliefs can government and law intrude?
Another question is, why was the gay store that threw a fit and kicked Christians out- screaming profanities at them not punished in like manner as the cake place?
No one should be forced to do business with anyone (except utilities, etc.)
Should a fashion designer be forced by law to make a dress for Mrs. Trump?
Steven Crowder went to something like 13 bakeries in "Dearborn" and popped that question and was 13 to 0 with all 13 being No's.
So where was the lame-stream media detailing this inconsistency in juxtaposition to this case making it all the way to "The Supreme's" ?
They asked for the rainbow cake to have “God bless the union of XXX and xxxx” on it.
The Christian bakery should have somehow brought in a muslim bakery person into the court case as a co-defendent- bet that would shut the liberals on the bench up
Although if two straight men asked for a cake, by definition it would not have been a homosexual wedding cake.
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.