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.
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.
[[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?
The gay couple are not ‘victims’ here, they are gay activist bullies. The apparently checked with about 20 other bakeries that were more than happy to make a cake for them, until they found one that wouldn’t.
Who spends that amount of time to find someone NOT TO bake them a cake?
I would love to hear that phone call- they probably gay-ed it up nice and disgusting for him, who needs to go to such detail about their gay marriage on a phone call?
Counting on Roberts is like expecting a wild bear to stop defecating in the woods.
You can't have your cake and suck it too.
I read that there wont even be a decision until this Summer.
[[ Justice Kennedy commented that Colorado has not been tolerant of Jack Phillips.
And there it is, the crux of the case: tolerance. Should a state be tolerant of its citizens’ religious beliefs? May it disallow certain beliefs with which it disagrees, demanding that its citizens express antithetical beliefs or face punishment?]]
In the days of kings, evil kings FORCED Christians to bow to idols or face death- they FORCED Christians to violate their strongly held religious beliefs, or face death or punishment-
Are we now forcing religious people to bow to the gay idol/agenda?
[[Justice Kennedy ... questioned whether ruling in Phillips’s favor would allow shop owners to post signs in their windows such as “no gays allowed” or “no cakes for gay weddings.”
Yes, A Store owner should be able to post ‘no cakes for gay weddings because it is against our religious moral beliefs” Every bit as much as they should be allowed to post a sign which states something along the liens of “We will not make cakes for those who practice child sacrifices because it is against our religious moral beliefs-” OR “We will not bake cakes that celebrate pedophilia because it is against our religious moral beliefs”
This is NOT a civil rights issue- the refusal to baKE the cake has nothing to do with the color of skin one is born with- It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that two people CHOOSE to practice a sin that is in direct violation of the religious store owner’s religion
I really wish a muslim baker had been a codefendent- The SC would have puckered their poopers in fear of offending muslism by ruling they can not decline ot bake cakes for gays
This will lose 5-4 as Roberts who committed an easily researched and established FELONY by adopting his children from the Irish Free State which REQUIRES Irish Free State Citizenship of those trying to adopt an Irish Free State born child. Roberts “adoptions” happened in an undisclosed “South American country” The Democrats have black mailed Roberts on gay “marriage” before in the Texas case AND the Obamacare case. In the Obamacare case a flabbergasted Scalia said “Forty five minutes ago he told me he was voting the other way.” The Democrats blackmailed him then and they will do it again.
I read Amy Howe’s article on oral argument at SCOTUSblog. Normally she does a very good job of neutral unbiased coverage of SCOTUS proceedings, but I do have a bone to pick with her on this one...and will get to that later.
The crux of her article and my review of oral argument seem to confirm what I have expected the ruling in this case to be. It will be a 5-4 opinion in favor of the baker, handed down by the Court at the very end of the term as the custodial staff is emptying the wastebaskets and turning out the lights. As much as this will be a victory for Masterpiece Cake Shop, it will not be a broad victory in favor of opponents to the concept of same sex marriage. This case looks like it will be a very narrow ruling confined more or less to its facts. It will not contain language broad enough to allow Christians to generally opt out of participation in same sex weddings. The Court will not want to disturb its rationale for public accommodations civil rights enforcement laws. Masterpiece Cake Shop wins because it’s a two-fer argument; religious belief coupled with forced expression. You have to have both to win. Most cases only have the belief without the public endorsement/compelled expression aspect. And the conservatives on the Court don’t want to permit compelled expression.
This is why the Court has not taken up cases involving Christian photographers and florists. They don’t have the expression element to the same extent as the cakeshop (although a good friend of mine makes a compelling argument that the photographer has a better case than the baker).
The tug of war between public accomodation laws and expression is why the Court didn’t want to take this case; it passed something like 10 or 13 conferences before the Court granted certiorari. It does not like to have to rule between competing fundamental rights. But that’s the result of creating those rights through substantive due process. Sooner or later in that labyrinth of rights, they will come into direct conflict, and someone’s rights become licenses. They are granted, and revoked, by the state with less due process than a fishing license.
Now on to my bone to pick with Amy Howe. In her article she talked about the justices who sided with the gay couple. I’ve spoken to several people about this case, and they usually talk about whether the Court will uphold the rights of the gay couple. This premise is simply WRONG. The gay couple are NOT parties in this lawsuit. It is between the State of Colorado and an individual baker. It is an exercise of the power of the state to enforce a law against a private citizen. The gay couple are not parties, don’t have standing, and don’t stand to gain or lose from this suit. They already got their free cake. That is a fundamental issue people need to understand.
And that is perhaps ultimately the reason the baker should win. It’s not gay couple vs baker, it’s the State vs. the baker. It his his fundamental rights that are at issue, not the rights of the gay couple.
One factor in Kennedy's thinking might be what happens after the court shifts, with either him or Ginsberg being replaced by a Trump conservative. If the decision is too raw, it might get reversed if a new case is brought before the new Justices. Stare Decis be damned.
Praying for a few liberals to retire... spend some time with their families...
Nobody has a privileged right to force someone else to speak on behalf of them.
You can’t even force your Congressmen and Senators to speak on behalf of you. And they are elected and paid to represent you.