LGBTQ Mafia strikes again: Christian baker ordered to bake cakes for gays
- Thread starter breakingcontact
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Actually, the judiciary is supposed to act as a check and balance. Problem is they are supposed to use the Constitution as their guide. Too many liberal judges want to re-write the Constitution to match their personal dogma. And that is how they are interpreting (wrongly) the Constitution, which leads to the problems you describe.
Most are walking back the claim 7-2 is narrow, but NPR is still trying with this headline:
"In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Decides In Favor Of Baker Over Same-Sex Couple"
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Ole Cowboy
TGT Addict
I will take you up on that Brother, Shiner Bock works for me.
Rumor is Justic Kennedy is going to retire. If so, then here we go again into the SOP Liberal Vs Conservative arguement.
When it comes to SCOTUS I do not care if you are liberal or a conservative, makes no difference to and it should not to anyone.
For SCOTUS there should be 1 and only 1 acid test...where do you stand on the Constitution and if we want to boil it down (which I do) I ask the question, where do you stand on the 2nd Amendment. Get a person to answer that question and you have you answer as to what kind of judge they will be.
The ONLY acceptable answer is: "the RKBA is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!" Anything else and my comment is 'NEXT'...
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
But if they're liberal, they'll lie like a dead cat about supporting the 2nd, just to get the appointment...
Stating "the ends justify the means"
When it comes down to it who enforces court rulings???? Who can force the President to do something? Last I checked without enforcement action a ruling isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
Lawyers vs Rednecks. Who has more firepower?
Lawyers vs Rednecks. Who has more firepower?
WSJ
The Supreme Court’s Half-Baked Cake
Kennedy saves a baker from anti-religious bias he said couldn’t happen.
By
The Editorial Board
June 4, 2018 7:15 p.m. ET
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday for a baker who refused to custom-bake a cake for a same-sex wedding out of sincere religious belief. Hold the champagne—this apparent victory for religious freedom may be short-lived.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in legalizing same-sex marriage in Obergefell (2015), the “First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faith.” Therefore, he predicted, the decision would pose “no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.”
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has forced Justice Kennedy to eat those words. In 2012 a gay couple asked Colorado baker Jack Phillips to bake a cake for their marriage, which at the time wasn’t recognized under Colorado law. Mr. Phillips refused but offered to sell the couple any baked good or cake off the shelf. Creating a wedding cake for an event that “celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony,” he said.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Mr. Phillips had violated the state public accommodation law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A state appellate court agreed.
While seven Justices on the High Court held for Mr. Phillips, the majority decision could have gone the other way had some facts been different. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy notes that Mr. Phillips was “entitled to a neutral decision-maker.”
Yet several commissioners evinced overt hostility toward religion. One declared that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust” and “it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.”
As is his wont, Justice Kennedy strains to avoid a clear and decisive ruling. While “religious and philosophical objections [to same-sex marriage] are protected, it is a general rule that such objections” don’t allow the denial of services “under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,” he writes.
Perhaps the best that can be said is that florists, make-up artists, photographers and other people of faith have lived to fight another day. A ruling against Mr. Phillips would have been catastrophic for religious liberty, but the majority’s muddle provides only gossamer protection.
The American Civil Liberties Union gloated that the Court ruled “based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace.” The message is that governments can punish religious beliefs as long as they keep their animus toward religion in the closet.
Justices Neil Gorsuch (joined by Samuel Alito ) and Clarence Thomas tag-teamed with forceful concurrences that would have gone further to protect the free exercise of religion and speech. Justice Thomas explained that custom-baking a wedding cake would have made Mr. Phillips “an active participant in the wedding celebration.” Invoking Court precedents that tolerated white supremacist expression, he notes that “States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified.”
Justice Gorsuch took the commission to task for applying a different standard in a case involving a baker who had refused to bake wedding cakes that criticized same-sex marriage: Civil authorities may not “gerrymander their inquiries based on the parties they prefer.” Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer defended the commission’s disparate treatment in their concurrence. While they agreed with Justice Kennedy that the commission had evinced bias toward Mr. Phillips, they said the commission could have legally punished him if commissioners had shown no overt religious bias.
Though Justice Kennedy rescued Mr. Phillips from the prejudice that he said in Obergefell couldn’t happen, the writing may be on the wedding cake. Four liberal Justices aren’t content with the right to same-sex marriage; they want to coerce everyone else to celebrate it no matter their religious beliefs, and politicians will follow.
The fundamental constitutional issue may have to be settled by a post-Kennedy Court, while lower courts in the meantime will decide case by case whether governments can compel religious people to endorse conduct with which they disagree. Masterpiece Cakeshop won’t go down in history as a legal masterpiece.
The Supreme Court’s Half-Baked Cake
Kennedy saves a baker from anti-religious bias he said couldn’t happen.
By
The Editorial Board
June 4, 2018 7:15 p.m. ET
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday for a baker who refused to custom-bake a cake for a same-sex wedding out of sincere religious belief. Hold the champagne—this apparent victory for religious freedom may be short-lived.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in legalizing same-sex marriage in Obergefell (2015), the “First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faith.” Therefore, he predicted, the decision would pose “no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.”
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has forced Justice Kennedy to eat those words. In 2012 a gay couple asked Colorado baker Jack Phillips to bake a cake for their marriage, which at the time wasn’t recognized under Colorado law. Mr. Phillips refused but offered to sell the couple any baked good or cake off the shelf. Creating a wedding cake for an event that “celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony,” he said.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Mr. Phillips had violated the state public accommodation law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A state appellate court agreed.
While seven Justices on the High Court held for Mr. Phillips, the majority decision could have gone the other way had some facts been different. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy notes that Mr. Phillips was “entitled to a neutral decision-maker.”
Yet several commissioners evinced overt hostility toward religion. One declared that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust” and “it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.”
As is his wont, Justice Kennedy strains to avoid a clear and decisive ruling. While “religious and philosophical objections [to same-sex marriage] are protected, it is a general rule that such objections” don’t allow the denial of services “under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law,” he writes.
Perhaps the best that can be said is that florists, make-up artists, photographers and other people of faith have lived to fight another day. A ruling against Mr. Phillips would have been catastrophic for religious liberty, but the majority’s muddle provides only gossamer protection.
The American Civil Liberties Union gloated that the Court ruled “based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace.” The message is that governments can punish religious beliefs as long as they keep their animus toward religion in the closet.
Justices Neil Gorsuch (joined by Samuel Alito ) and Clarence Thomas tag-teamed with forceful concurrences that would have gone further to protect the free exercise of religion and speech. Justice Thomas explained that custom-baking a wedding cake would have made Mr. Phillips “an active participant in the wedding celebration.” Invoking Court precedents that tolerated white supremacist expression, he notes that “States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified.”
Justice Gorsuch took the commission to task for applying a different standard in a case involving a baker who had refused to bake wedding cakes that criticized same-sex marriage: Civil authorities may not “gerrymander their inquiries based on the parties they prefer.” Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer defended the commission’s disparate treatment in their concurrence. While they agreed with Justice Kennedy that the commission had evinced bias toward Mr. Phillips, they said the commission could have legally punished him if commissioners had shown no overt religious bias.
Though Justice Kennedy rescued Mr. Phillips from the prejudice that he said in Obergefell couldn’t happen, the writing may be on the wedding cake. Four liberal Justices aren’t content with the right to same-sex marriage; they want to coerce everyone else to celebrate it no matter their religious beliefs, and politicians will follow.
The fundamental constitutional issue may have to be settled by a post-Kennedy Court, while lower courts in the meantime will decide case by case whether governments can compel religious people to endorse conduct with which they disagree. Masterpiece Cakeshop won’t go down in history as a legal masterpiece.
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
Free speech should include being able to NOT say something that you don't want to without persecution by the state.
In these days of Socialist Jaded Windbags, that's not always the case.
Repercussions for free speech (or not speaking what you don't want to) I can deal with... but there should not be government regulation of it.
In these days of Socialist Jaded Windbags, that's not always the case.
Repercussions for free speech (or not speaking what you don't want to) I can deal with... but there should not be government regulation of it.
Ole Cowboy
TGT Addict
I know and there is no way around that, liars will be liars...
Excellent analysis from the WSJ. Unfortunately, this isn't over and it's just a matter of time before it comes back to the SCOTUS, perhaps even this same baker although I believe there are other similar cases in the pipeline already. I don't understand why these justices can't see that.
Perhaps it will be good in the long run. I sadly suspect they punted because Kennedy wouldn't have voted outright that the baker's religious freedoms were constitutionally protected. Hopefully the next time it comes up he and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by two sane justices with a spine. It can't happen soon enough for me.
A ruling against the baker would have had monumental implications and taken us a big step closer to CWII, so I'm trying to look on the bright side. At least we bought a little more time to right this ship.
Also, it says something that the Colorado Commission was so blatantly bigoted against the Christian baker than even two of the liberals couldn't dismiss it. Whether that ends up mattering in the long run remains to be seen; as the article says, now they'll just keep their bigotry under wraps and find some other reason to deny it.
Perhaps it will be good in the long run. I sadly suspect they punted because Kennedy wouldn't have voted outright that the baker's religious freedoms were constitutionally protected. Hopefully the next time it comes up he and Ginsburg are gone and replaced by two sane justices with a spine. It can't happen soon enough for me.
A ruling against the baker would have had monumental implications and taken us a big step closer to CWII, so I'm trying to look on the bright side. At least we bought a little more time to right this ship.
Also, it says something that the Colorado Commission was so blatantly bigoted against the Christian baker than even two of the liberals couldn't dismiss it. Whether that ends up mattering in the long run remains to be seen; as the article says, now they'll just keep their bigotry under wraps and find some other reason to deny it.
Ole Cowboy
TGT Addict
Oh I would bet $$$$$ SCOTUS sees it, but times have changed and Congress threw a us a real curve ball. I have been saying this since the LAW was pass giving special groups special considerations, rights, protections and privileges. It started with Blacks and the Dems kept adding in every minority group they could find in trade for their vote. To make it worse, they are called the "Protected Class".
The problem is the GOVT granted these special RIGHTS on top of the Bill of Rights. The question is do they supersede the BoR if there is a conflict? IF you are a Dem-Leftist then the answer is YES as they must protect their voting base. However the argument should be Govt granted rights do not overrule GOD given.
My guess is, SCOTUS did not and does not want to go there BECAUSE:
If SCOTUS rules GOVT granted rights overrule GOD given, lot of us are going to really be pissed!
If SCOTUS rules GOVT granted rights do NOT overrule GOD given, the ACLU and for left jump in and say that Govt is forcing GOD upon us.
IMO: What does the Constitution say about this? EZ, try the opening words: "We the people..." It does not say WE the LGBTQ, BLACK, PURPLE, LATINO etc etc.
YEA, CWII may be a lot closer than some think!
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
And stereotyping is making assumptions about all members of a group... and your statement could be reversed- "if flagrant gays would just STFU and stay in the closet"
I can tell you that Denver (Masterpiece Cakeshop is in a suburb of Denver) is second only to San Francisco in LBGTQE (XYZPDQ) population, and some of them are very "in your face" at times... basically trolling for conflict.
So the baker should lie and say he's already booked that weekend or something? You want him to chose between bearing false witness and participating in something he finds offensive? Sorry, I can't go along with that.
Besides which, there's good indications that gay activist types go around targeting known or suspected Christian-owned businesses just to see whether or not they'll participate in a gay wedding. In fact, I believe I read that this very thing was done in this case. Regardless, how long before a denied couple follows up and finds the baker or florist didn't have another wedding that weekend after all? That's the environment we're in now.
Bottom line is that no one has an inherent right to another's private goods or services. Period, end of story. That's doubly true when said good or service involves a customized artistic creation. Applying the Civil Rights Act to private actors was wrong and in a sane world would have been declared unconstitutional within 10 minutes of its passage. It made some level of sense with regard to race in a Jim Crow era but now we're stuck with this nonsense of every aggrieved minority group demanding special rights and privileges even at the expense of the 1st Amendment.
This won't end well unless Trump gets a couple more of his justices on the Court.
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
well at least you're now explaining it in a less stupid way now.. so mission accomplished I guess. Your other post made it sound like admonishing Christian bakers for publicly calling out gays like the Westboro Church litigation team do...
And they are literally trolling (for lawsuit cases.. since they worship courthouses and money)
I do not care what he does, he is the one who will suffer the consequences.
I myself do not feel the need to explain my actions/decisions to complete strangers. YMMV. Never understood why others do, especially if it involves social reasons.
Example:
Pope: Can you make a roll cage for my PopeMobile? I want to run it in the Baja 1000.
Renegade: No can do.
So simple.
Staff online
-
VaqueroMoving stuff to the gas prices thread.....
Members online
- ronr68
- lonestardiver
- Gordo
- Cooper
- Ausländer
- Bigguy
- Raider4044
- zackmars
- craigntx
- festering
- ZX9RCAM
- AlteisenMkII
- deemus
- digger
- General Zod
- cycleguy2300
- jamespres2001
- Armybrat
- DaBull
- Johnny Diamond
- toddnjoyce
- Texasgordo
- PoolBoy22
- oohrah
- ggiovanni
- TEXAS "All or nothing"
- SIG_Fiend
- ULEWZ
- wiredgeorge
- jetcycles
- 1911'S 4 Me
- A.Texas.Yankee
- Darqhelmet
- kbaxter60
- Vaquero
- NakPPI
- Txdweeb
- jaspaq13
- dsgrey
- striker55
- Blaize
- D0ntTr3@d0nM3
- Highplainsvet
- LaVbRef
- ShootTheBreeze
- mindseducer
- Gorp2007
- smittyb
- S13
- DenverGp
