Skip to comments.Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Gay Rights Against First Amendment
Posted on 09/08/2017 8:32:10 AM PDT by ptsal
**snip**Supreme Court is slated to consider several blockbuster cases when it resumes next month. One of the most highly anticipated cases is Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which involves a Colorado bakery that refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) when he declined to design and create a custom cake honoring the same-sex marriage of David Mullins and Charlie Craig.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallawreporter.com ...
Didn’t they already side with Jack Phillips?
Justice Anthony Kennedy will probably be the swing vote.
The states public accommodation law forbids discrimination based on race, religion and sexual orientation, but the DOJ agreed that requiring Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple would violate his constitutional rights.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/doj-sides-baker-same-sex-wedding-cake-case-article-1.3479277
In a filing with the high court Thursday, the Justice Department argued it would create an intrusion of the First Amendment where public accommodations law compels someone to create expression for a particular person or entity and to participate, literally or figuratively, in a ceremony or other expressive event.
Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights, the Justice Department wrote in an amicus brief ahead of arguments in the case.
And we all know which way he swings.
Interesting tidbit from the Slate link: “the court took the case strongly indicating that at least four justices think the Colorado court got it wrong. (It takes four votes for the Supreme Court to hear a case.)” I didn’t know they went by the numbers that way.
The rest is the usual willfully ignorant Jim Crow twaddle that completely ignores that the case is a question of artistic expression, not of discrimination against a protected class.
In case you can't tell, I don't have a good feeling about this, unless Ginsburg kicks off or Breyer and/or Kennedy retires over the summer.
Sounds like....First Amendment rights beats lifestyles.
If you are obligated to service all request from an individual, doesn’t that make you a slave to that individual?
Yeah, he seems to swing that way....
The world would be a better place if homosexual acts were still illegal.
That’s how I see it. It reminds me of the deli that had served an openly homosexual couple for a long time and the couple asked them to cater their wedding. They refused due to religious beliefs. The couple said they were discriminating against them. But the case is hard to make when they had been serving them for a long time.
This is what people need to grasp here: When you refuse to work this sort of event as a baker, florist, photographer, etc., you are not discriminating against people. You are discriminating against an EVENT. And that is a classic free speech issue.
Legally, these alphabet people can pound sand.
...iscrimination against a protected class.
Also, I don’t know who penned the phrase, but I no longer call them LGBTQXYZ. I’ve picked up the phrase someone else came up with: “alphabet people”.
And to do it one better, #Alphabetpeople.
Don’t be surprised if that retard Kennedy screws us again.
Mike Adams (the UNC professor) rearranged the letters to “GBLT”.
Really is common sense... but that appears to be in limited supply now a days.
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.