Posted on 06/05/2018 5:56:06 AM PDT by C19fan
The Supreme Court has ruled on the Masterpiece Cake case — and on the surface, it would appear to be a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. The justices ruled 7 to 2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the religious freedom of a baker, Jack Phillips, when it sanctioned him for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012.
“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Whenever there’s a situation in the country with which the NYT disagrees, the NYT says, “It’s time to change the constitution.”
Protecting us from elitist tools like the staff at the NYT is precisely what the constitution is all about.
Just so you all “know” the make up of the Colorado Civil Rights “commission”
First, notice, there are no “white people” on it!
Colorado Civil Rights Commissioners
Anthony Aragon, Democrat, Representing State or Local Government Entities, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Miguel “Michael” Rene Elias, Republican, Representing Community at Large, Pueblo (term expires: 3/13/20)
Carol Fabrizio, Unaffiliated, Representing Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Charles Garcia, Democrat, Representing Community at Large, Denver (term expires: 3/13/21)
Rita Lewis, Democrat, Representing Small Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Jessica Pocock, Unaffiliated, Representing Community at Large, Colorado Springs (term expires: 3/13/20)
About the Commission
Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate to serve four-year terms. They are selected from across Colorado and represent both political parties. Two commissioners represent business (one of whom represents small business), two represent government, and three represent the community at large. At least four of the commissioners are members of groups who have been or might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, or age.
Matters concerning investigations or appeals before the Commission are confidential, and can only be discussed with the parties and/or their representatives.
I agree with you.
There are two genders. If in doubt, a quick glance at your crotch will tell you which one you are.
Why can’t these people just go to businesses run by gays. Or just find a business that will do what they want. Why force people into submission
What part of Freedom of the Press would you like to see constrained?
All of it. The MSM doesn’t favor the right of the people to publish our own opinions independent of its monopoly.What they do favor is the conceit that membership in the Associated Press is a title of nobility. In direct contradiction of two prohibitions of such in the Constitution.
Folks today believe our present gender soup was always the way it was, or should always be the way it is, with more confusion to come.
Historically, confusion is a precursor to bloody overthrow.
First it was the “Citizens United” case that sent libtard heads exploding now they are back for more USA Constitutional shredding. The LEFT MUST BE DESTROYED - THERE IS NO NEGOTIATING ON THIS.
Agreed. And I did my duty under the law and policy regarding homosexual behavior by personnel under my command.
I even had one young married man come to me on open door policy and declare he was gay. Peeling back the onion he had gotten drunk, woke up in bed with some guy, knew that something bad occurred and decided he was gay... After a few sessions with Chaplain Marsh ( LtCdr, USN) he was convinced that rather than being gay ( he loved his wife and wanted to have sexual relations with her, despised the thought of homosexual contact), that he was victimized by a pervert who took advantage of his drunkenness.
I told him was right. I told him to choose his friends and activities carefully, as every choice has consequences. Only go out with your wife and only take her to places that are safe. He wound up being a great Soldier.
I couldn't stomach it. I will say that if the author wants to amend The Constitution, get cracking and go for it.
Uh huh. "Do what we demand or we will destroy you!" is already their policy. Transgenders in locker rooms and bathrooms. Bake the cake. Disband that college club. Boycott that sponsor. Boycott that business. Who dares to imagine what they would demand with such an amendment as an explicit, de jure directive.
Because their real objective is to force people into submission IMO.
This is the real threat of an Article V convention.
We expect a restoration of a government as envisioned by the founders, but the odds are better than half we will actually wind up with something else.
They will scrap the bill of rights and start over and it’s likely 2A won’t get back in.
You are right,to an extent, but when used in law, it means to curtail, which is fairly close to infringe. (I looked it up).
Say.....after gay “marriage” was forced on Massachusetts and there were calls for a marriage amendment,wasn’t it these very same liberals that said we COULDN’T change the constitution?
It’s Time to Change the Constitution.Ok the first thing to go is news media......................................
>
As such, the clause clearly establishes the right of the individual to either participate or not at their sole discretion.
>
AKA ‘to discriminate’. As usual, the Left has perverted meanings of the English language (in their favor), and the Right has little/no ability (compunction) to counter/correct.
>
There is no “public accommodation” clause in the Constitution.
>
Neither is murder (abortion. While Life is a Right referenced in the Declaration), but that doesn’t EVER stop the Leftists.
Public Accom. were the ‘camel’s nose’ of govt into private enterprise. Using the CRA to inject itself where it had NO authority.
The Free Market most likely would have taken care of ‘those establishments’ in due time. Course, we somehow have, today, ‘self-segregation’ in colleges, the Black\Hispanic Caucus, La Raza, BET, etc.
What they really want is the “right” for people over 10 to have sex.
Yesterday, someone said groupthink is so Orwellian. Was groupthink in 1984?
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.