You don't wanna see how Big Mike makes donuts... 
Posted on 06/04/2018 7:17:18 AM PDT by CFW
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."
link to decision
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
It is a WIN for my friends Jack Phillips and Michael Farris.
I just bought some baked goods and brought them to my wife’s office.
Also, got to talk with Jack.
I’ll get to see Mike Farris at the Western Conservative Summit this weekend.
They didn’t say only in that timeframe. Saying that the timeframe, when homesexual “marriage” was not legal in Colorado, lends credence to his claim that he believed he had a legal right to refuse to bake the cake, does not mean that once homosexual “marriage” was made legal in Colorado, he no longer had any reason to believe he had a legal right to refuse to bake the cake. They never said homosexual “marriage” being illegal in Colorado was the only reason for his belief. Only that it lent credence to his belief.
They didn’t say it was the reason the ruling is being overturned. They said it was because the State did not give unbiased consideration to Phillips’ religious beliefs. They did not say there were no other reasons to overturn it. I wish they had gone further, but the fact they didn’t, doesn’t mean they disagree with any further defense of Phillips.
They ruled in favor of Phillips, on a narrow set of circumstances. They did not rule against him on other circumstances. They simply didn’t rule on those circumstances.
I think it will if the agency displayed similar bias in their questions and remarks in the original hearings the Oregon baker can sue to overturn on the same grounds as this one because the precedent has been set.
That’s my take on it. Colorado should have let this go since the case was based on 2012 law and not what it is now. Since Phillips doesn’t do wedding cakes anymore but is otherwise serving all that come to his store, the Colorado state officials will just have to suck their thumbs and turn blue!
Indeed, he now has a case of denial of his civil rights under color of law he could press(since the SC ruled that the state officials mocked his religion)...unless the statute of limitations is past in this case.
While the baker who brought the case here had a victory of sorts, the court purposefully left undefined what the extent of these discrimination laws might be. After watching the court for many years now, I'm disgusted by their general cowardice, and at how slowly the wheels of the legal system grind today. This case started in 2012, and here we have this weak decision in 2018.
In contrast, let's take a look at another case...
On April 18, 1938 Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for possession of a sawed-off shotgun.
On June 2, 1938 Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for possession of a sawed-off shotgun.
On June 11, 1938, the defendents filed a Demurrer to Indictment, challenging the indictment on constitutional grounds. On that same date Heartsill Ragon, United States District Judge sustained the demurrer on the grounds that the law they were charged under was unconstitutional according to the 2nd Amendment.
On September 21, 1938, Miller and Layton were re-indicted on a charge of transporting a sawed-off shotgun from Claremore to Siloam Springs last April 18.
On January 3, 1939 defendants filed a demur to the (re-)indictment. Again, on that same date Heartsill Ragon United States District Judge sustained the demurr on Constitutional grounds.
On January 30, 1939 the U.S. Government filed an appeal.
In March 1939 the U.S. Government filed a brief with the Supreme Court for this case to support it's appeal.
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court issued it's opinion.
So, the entire thing, from arrest to supreme court decision as from 4/18/1938 to 5/15/1939.
Kinda puts today's legal system to shame doesn't it?
BTW, the details on all of the above can be found on my website here
Ginsburg's SC law clerks dissent.
Fixed it for you...
You don't wanna see how Big Mike makes donuts...
No, they wrote that Phillip’s belief that he was acting lawfully was reasonable given the legal status of gay marriage at that time (2012). That gives rise to the implication that under current law Phillip’s belief he was acting lawfully would be unreasonable. A “he should know better now” argument. They were addressing whether he had reason to believe his refusal to bake a cake would be lawful.
When addressing that please note the court does not mention his religious beliefs. Phillip’s religious beliefs are mentioned as an introduction explaining how Phillip’s saw the issue not how they see it. That is why the Court wrote, “There is SOME (my emphasis)force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful.” That force was because of the State’s position at the time. It was not because of Phillip’s religious beliefs.
Again they told the State what it must not do when making a ruling regarding such issues. They did not tell the State it must allow Phillips to refuse certain services to same sex couples/ gays on free expression/ religious freedom grounds. Admitting to Phillip’s beliefs is not the same thing as agreeing they should supersede anti-discrimination laws.
The court basically said if you want to make sure Christians are compelled to bake the cake don’t get personal about their beliefs do this instead.
The case against Phillips had nothing to do with the Colorado marriage law, nor absence of the marriage law. It was about his refusal to create a cake for the celebration in Colorado, of a homosexual wedding in a different state. The charge was that he discriminated against the “couple” for being homosexuals. The anti-discrimination law didn’t change when the marriage law changed.
If you read the majority opinion, you’ll see the brief mention of Colorado law regarding homosexual “marriage” was brought up to make the point that Phillips was treated different from the other bakers because of his religious beliefs. THAT is the reason the SC overturned the lower court’s ruling. NOT because homosexual “marriage” wasn’t recognized in Colorado in 2012.
*like*
:o]
‘Face
You should read it. They didn’t say any of that.
It rained yesterday. That doesn’t mean that it didn’t rain today. It just means that it rained yesterday.
They said he was justified in his belief that he was acting within the law, and the state did not give him the same consideration for that defense as they gave other bakers for a similar defense. They did not say that he would no longer be justified in believing he acted within the law. And whether or not he believed he was acting within the law had nothing to do with the SC ruling anyway. They overturned the lower court because Phillips was denied fair treatment because of his religious beliefs. It’s as simple as that.
Cool, thanks for the little side trip down civics 101.
Typical Lefty "lawfare" against their enemies...
You’re welcome. I hope I answered your questions.
You answered somebody’s question. Probably from another thread,
but you answered somebody’s question and that’s what counts.
But for now incorporation is law of the land.
So is it correct what the justices are saying that a vendor does NOT have the right, in the land of the free, to sell to whom they want?
They say “vendor” so I take a contractor CAN refuse to build a house for someone if they choose?
“The Supreme court is superior to any other court or Tribunal right? Isn’t that specifically stated in the Constitution.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3660426/posts?page=140#140
I was attempting to answer your question above (post #140).
I read that too. Almost like he was suggesting that gays should enjoy such a worry free life that even stamping down on religious rights might in the end be worth it.
Your answer had nothing to do with the question [rhetorical] that I asked.
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.