Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Search

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,461
Tokens
The Supreme Court is set aside a Colorado court ruling against the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop who cited religious freedom and wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the highest court in the land is not deciding the big issue in the case – whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

The Supreme Court justices' limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. They voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

The clash at the high court pitted Phillips' First Amendment claims of artistic freedom against the anti-discrimination arguments of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the two men Phillips turned away in 2012. The Denver-area baker cited his Christian faith in refusing to make a cake for their wedding celebration.

Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, was previously judged through multiple phases of litigation to have violated Colorado's anti-discrimination law. Through his lawyers, he argued before the highest court in the land that he's an artist who should not be compelled to create a cake that contradicts his religious views.

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the issue "must await further elaboration." Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

The Department of Justice welcomed the ruling in a statement, saying they "pleased" the the court's decision. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans," the Justice department said in a statement.

Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom who represented Philips said in a statement following the court's ruling, "Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs."

Waggoner added, "Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack's religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack's beliefs about marriage."
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
85,743
Tokens
Should never have gotten that far. If somebody doesn't want my business, I'd laugh at them and move on
 

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
95,215
Tokens
And the guy said he would do a cake, just not with two giving each other oral sketched on top
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
6,929
Tokens
Good decision. Common sense is prevailing again. Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both clueless, dissented.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
3,301
Tokens
Good decision. Common sense is prevailing again. Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both clueless, dissented.

Those two are a couple of "feckless cunts"
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
37,418
Tokens

Court Delivers Ruling in Case of Christian Who Refused to Make Cake For Lesbian Couple

1666718582756.png



Victory for a Christian baker was announced on Friday after years of going around the court system for a lawsuit over a rejected wedding cake order. The order for the wedding cake depicted two lesbians; therefore, creating such a cake conflicted with the Cakeshop owner’s religious beliefs about marriage.

“Judge rules Christian baker was allowed to refuse to sell cake to lesbian couple,” LGBTQ Nation reported, adding:


“In his decision, Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw said that the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing had failed to prove that Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller had intentionally discriminated against the couple under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.”

The public may remember the case that was widely discussed and used by the left as a rallying call to action for increased empowerment of homosexuals against Christians and against small businesses.

“We applaud the court for this decision,” said Charles LiMandri, Thomas More Society special counsel who worked on the case said in an official statement, adding: “The freedom to practice one’s religion is enshrined in the First Amendment, and the United States Supreme Court has long upheld the freedom of artistic expression.”


Fox News reported on the story with more details:

Cathy Miller, a cake designer who owns the popular Tastries bakery in Bakersfield, California, won what her lawyers at the Thomas More Society called “a First Amendment victory” when Judge Eric Bradshaw of the Superior Court of California in Kern County ruled against California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment, which had brought the lawsuit against her.

Miller was subject to multiple lawsuits after she referred a lesbian couple to another baker when they requested a cake for their wedding. Because of her Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, Miller declined to design a custom cake for their ceremony, believing it would be tantamount to a tacit affirmation.

“Here at Tastries, we love everyone,” Miller said in an interview with KERO in 2017. “My husband and I are Christians, and we know that God created everyone, and He created everyone equal, so it’s not that we don’t like people of certain groups, there are just certain things that violate my conscience.”


After refusing to make the cake, the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment filed a lawsuit against Miller’s business under provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a broad 1959 state statute that sought to protect consumers from being discriminated against by businesses on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or religion.

Paul Jonna, another special counsel for the Thomas More Society who was also one of Miller’s attorneys, pointed out that there was “a certain irony” to the case since “a law intended to protect individuals from religious discrimination was used to discriminate against Cathy for her religious beliefs.”


“He went on to say that his client’s beliefs regarding marriage are part of what is considered mainstream Christian teachings and that in going after Miller, the state harassed her because of her religion.


The attorney also noted that during questioning under oath, attorneys for the state appeared to question the sincerity of her beliefs by asking if she also adhered to dietary laws of the Old Testament like she does regarding the issues of sexual morality,” Jon Doughtery reported for Conservative Brief.

“The state was actually questioning the sincerity of Cathy’s faith,” Jonna said. “The fact that they called Miller’s open and sincerely held beliefs into question is almost as disturbing as quibbling over her status as an artist.”

“In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field after games in another huge First Amendment victory.


When the school district learned that then-coach Joseph Kennedy was praying with the team, they told him that he could pray separately from the students. Kennedy declined to change his practice, was put on paid leave, and then filed a lawsuit,” Doughtery reported.

During oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices seemed sympathetic to Kennedy. The Washington Post reported:

Questions from the court’s conservatives indicated they believe the school district has misread the court’s precedents regarding government endorsement of religion and perhaps was hostile to such demonstrations.


Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether Kennedy would have been disciplined if he had taken a knee during the national anthem to protest racism. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned Katskee, legal director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, about other political activism.

Suppose “when Coach Kennedy went out to the center of the field … all he did was to wave a Ukrainian flag. Would you have fired him?” Alito asked.

“Where is the school district rule that says that?” Alito demanded.

“No teacher or coach should lose their job for simply expressing their faith while in public,” Kelly Shackelford, president, and CEO of First Liberty, who is representing the case, said in a statement

 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,230
Messages
13,449,823
Members
99,404
Latest member
byen17188
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com