Posted on 12/08/2017 8:03:40 AM PST by x1stcav
While there is always a risk of reading too much into Supreme Court justices’ questions during oral argument, there is often much to be gleaned.
If Tuesday’s oral argument is any indication, the year-long anticipation for the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court showdown will result in a narrow opinion that provides little clarity in the continuing conflict between culture and religious liberty.
By now the basics are well-known: When a homosexual couple asked Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop, to design a wedding cake for them, Phillips informed the pair that he could not, in conscience, create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. The men filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, claiming Masterpiece Cakeshop “discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation” because of their sexual orientation.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of the couple and ordered Masterpiece to provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples. The seven-member Colorado Commission on Civil Rights upheld the ALJ’s decision. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s conclusion that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.
The state appellate court also rejected Masterpiece’s argument that compelling Phillips to use his artistic talents to create a cake for a same-sex marriage violated his free speech and free exercise of religion rights. Masterpiece Cakeshop then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
If I go to a Kosher Deli and order a ham sandwich will I get to sue if they don’t deliver?...................
Common sense has gone out the window in this crazy world.
You can’t just tell a homosexual to get his cake from someone else. Instead, you are compelled to endorse and celebrate his “marriage” to another male. Otherwise you are a bigot.
Never ever predict how the Supremes will go...recall John Roberts and the Obamacare fiasco.
Very interesting read.
Baking a cake for their wedding amounts to “participation”. The government should not be forcing people to “participate” in anyone’s wedding. No reason needed.
That depends. Are you a member of a marginalized group? If so, you can assume discrimination was the reason for the refusal rather than reality.
We went down the wrong path decades ago when the Supremes upheld legislation requiring private owners to serve people they did not wish to serve.
It destroyed freedom of association.
Freedom of association is as basic as freedom of speech.
Maybe we can restore that right.
Phillips has the right to stand for his principals for the Lords sake!
“If I go to a Kosher Deli and order a ham sandwich will I get to sue if they don’t deliver?...................”
They’ll give you pastrami instead and tell you it’s better for you.
If Phillips wins this case, do the gay couple in Indy who sued have to pay pack their award?
I’ll just order a cheeseburger instead.................
Justice Kagan is an idiot. A restaurant meal and a wedding cake may both be food but they are not familiar in regards to artistic expression. A wedding cake is chosen not only on the basis of taste but for its artistry. That artistry is expressed by the baker individually for each couple. The couple participates in the design and presentation of the cake. The same cannot be said of the majority of restaurant meals. Not only that the wedding cake provider is usually required to enter the reception venue implying that he is quite comfortable with supplying the cake even if outright enthusiastic approval is not part of it.
As for makeup artists that line of questioning should be answered clearly. No a Christian make up artist should not be compelled to supply her talents to a drag queen.
But religious liberty need not enter the argument or even the free speech issue. The most basic argument is that the government shall not force anyone to enter into a contract. The government has no business asking the why of that decision. It should just respect the freedom of the parties involved.
Dear Justice Kennedy,
And why should there not be an ability to boycott gay marriages? Actually who says that such an ability does not only exist but does have Constitutional protection?
“Never ever predict how the Supremes will go...”
This is the first thing they teach you in law school.
we have tv series dedicated to cake as art but this is not art?
Probably threatened directly by Obama. Maybe on account of his kids. Or maybe in fear of his life?
wedding cake is an art, just ask any bridezilla.
the dinosaur media putting the homosexual couple on the camera lately was to create an anecdote meme that justifies demonizing opposing thoughts as thought crime.
Big Swamp loves you...
today the cake tomorrow mandatory attendance.
You might, but if it was a Muslim establishment refusing service, you’d lose for sure!
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.