SCOTUS Overturns Case Against Gay-Biased Baker

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding over religious reasons. In a landmark 7-2 ruling (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor against), the Court found that the decision by Jack Philips of Masterpiece Cakeshop to refuse the same-sex couple's request is protected under the first amendment. 

In 2012 gay fiancés David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked Philips to create a custom cake for their wedding. Philips, who does not make cakes for Halloween, adult parties, anti-American messages or themes which he has religious objections to, refused.

David Mullins and Charlie Criag

Mullins and Craig filed discrimination charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission which agreed with the couple - saying that Philips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law barring businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. The Colorado Court of Appeals also sided with the couple.

Jack Phillips at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Photograph: Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images

And then the lawsuit began... (via Fox News)

December 2013

Judge Robert Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts decided — in line with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) — that the bakeshop had violated a Colorado law which prohibits businesses from refusing service due to a person’s sexual orientation.

Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed the decision.

May 2014

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided at a public hearing that Masterpiece had violated Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA.

Phillips was ordered to change its company policies as well as offer “comprehensive staff training” to employees. The cake shop was also required to provide quarterly reports about how it handled prospective customers.

August 2015

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Phillips cannot cite his religious beliefs in his refusal to provide a service to same-sex couples.

With the ruling, Phillips could face a penalty if he continues to deny wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

April 2016

The Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from Phillips.

July 2016

On behalf of Phillips, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.

“We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living,” ADF senior counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement at the time.

June 2017

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the case during its next term, which began in the fall.

As The Hill reports, Kennedy, who wrote the decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution when it forced Jack Phillips to make a cake for a same-sex wedding he morally opposed under the state's public accommodations law.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views in some instances protected forms of expression," the court said. 

The court did not however issue a definitive ruling on circumstances where people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious reasons, which Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion "must await further elaboration."

Kennedy also wrote that that the case presents “difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a state and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services”.

The second,” Kennedy writes, “is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the first amendment.

“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.”

Full Decision below



???ö? Okienomics Mon, 06/04/2018 - 11:39 Permalink

1) Stupid case -- Going to Supreme Court over this bullshit trivia.  Blame Colorado retards.

2) Stupid victimization -- It's a fucking cake.  You are not a victim.  You are not Rosa Parks.

3) Stupid opinion -- Sexual preference is not a protected class. Never has been. Never will be.

4) Stupid premise -- Marriage should remain solely a religious matter. Government stay out.

In reply to by Okienomics

bigkahuna Rakksan Mon, 06/04/2018 - 14:47 Permalink

You'd think this kind of bullshit would be coming from california - NOPE! Colorado!!

If this is not an example of the depravity that is taking place in Culorado - I do not know what is. The fucking state appeals court and supreme court sided with the idiots who could have gone anywhere to get their homo cake made - but NO! They found a guy who believes gays are sinful and tried to force him to do it!!! The fucking state sided with the homos!!

Culorado!!! I hope this baker comes back with a civil suit. I hope it names names, including the duck and cover politicians that let this happen.

In reply to by Rakksan

inosent lunaticfringe Mon, 06/04/2018 - 19:50 Permalink

The article states: "to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons", that old gasbag Kennedy got it wrong - again. From the looks of Kennedy has has been sucking on, and taking in big ones for quite some time now.

There is no such thing as a 'gay' person - which means a 'homosexual' person. Again, it is all about language and definition of terms, and just like in the area of 'jew', 'homosexual' (aka 'gay') is deceptively defined. The majority, in the marriage fiasco, set aside the argument - did not even consider it - that there is no known or identifiable genetic construct that physically determines, somehow, a person is, by design, pre-determined to engage in homosexual behaviors.

The court laughably, and insultingly to black people, for example, or women, for another, decided that 14th amendment rights of due process are owed not just to ppl for the sake of some aspect of themselves they have no control over (how they came into this world, their sex and their genetics), but to ppl who engage in deviant sexual practices, because it is the deviant practice (of the homosexual variety) that defines the so-called 'homosexual'.

Given the court refused to acknowledge that a deviant behavior is not a fundamental right to be protected, they based their decision on the apparent phenomenon that there have been, are and will always be those who engage in the deviant behavior (1.6% is a deviation of the norm), and capitulated to the sodomites because the jews on the ct felt 'sorry' for them.

The big LIE is someone is BORN to irrevocably choose to engage in deviant behavior. Instead of having the courage to tell the truth and rule in such a way that it is not, the court, as well as a vast array of adults all over the world, show a total lack of wisdom on this are, and as a result a lack of leadership.

The constitution makes absolutely no room to grant due process rights based on a deviant behavior. Deviant behaviors are to be shunned and shamed and discouraged. Otherwise they always lead to some really strange things, like grown men living as 6 year old girls, people who take massive doses of hormones to manipulate their default sexual nature, others who make bizarre claims about being one of 100 or so 'genders' and disavow being male or female, like an engineer disavowing 2+2=4, others who raise their children to be abnormally confused about their sexuality and teaching them their sex, despite their chromosomal architecture, they can choose what their sex is, etc.

And I am just scratching the surface here. The homosexual behavioral deviation is linked to something spiritual, and it is only a manifestation of something evil, as the only thing the capitulation to the homosexual 'spirit' has borne is the bad fruits noted above - no pun intended, haha. As we should all know by now, the 'fictional' character, Jesus, famously intoned, "you shall know a tree by its fruit."

The same insane idiots who are at the forefront of this demonic evil, who previously said Jesus "never existed" are now saying, as an aside, he was "gender fluid"!

Yet, because of the total loser azhlz in positions of leadership (not just pols and judges and 'jews', but PARENTS!), they cower in fear at the incessant demands of the sodomites, who have the full support of the vast apparatus of jew controlled banking, education, courts, and media, instead of telling their CHILDREN the TRUTH!

As a result, we get what we got - a totally corrupted 'education' system that literally instructs children, brainwashes and programs them, into accepting as fact and truth that what is objectively a statistical deviation is something normal. "Here, Billy, why don't you try it? It's OK!"

Billy crosses the line, and he is ruined, because once a person crosses that line, a thing done cannot be undone.

Crossing that line is not OK. There is nothing good about it. These faggoty posers only mask the hidden reality, selling the facade, but covering up the truth.

At least that azhl Kennedy, and the jews Breyer and Kagan, sided with the right of someone to tell these deviant jackasses to get lost.

But Kennedy, of course, has to 'reconcile' the contradiction between his deviant marriages and this ruling. A flimsy attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, at least to a sound mind, something Kennedy lost long ago.


In reply to by lunaticfringe

Faeriedust inosent Mon, 06/04/2018 - 20:40 Permalink

You are really getting all warped out of shape about a trifle.  Gay behavior -- and homosexual desires -- exist.  They aren't "catching", as homosexual sex does not reproduce itself.  That causes it to be naturally self-limiting.  It is however a perennial occurrence, which suggests that the basic drive is not all that uncommon.  It increases when a) the natural object of sexual desire, i.e., the sexually mature member of the opposite sex, is unavailable for mating (prisons, long male-only cruises, segregated girls' schools, or gender-disproportionate death rates), or b) during periods of extreme population density, when together with a marked decrease in female receptivity caused by stress, it helps to bring excessive reproduction into line with resources.  Both of these factors are at work today.  So the rise of homosexuality should be seen as one of several natural mechanisms to restore population balance.  Don't worry.  It's entirely self-limiting.  No need to start a Crusade.

In reply to by inosent

ebear inosent Tue, 06/05/2018 - 02:08 Permalink

"...there is no known or identifiable genetic construct that physically determines, somehow, a person is, by design, pre-determined to engage in homosexual behaviors."

Nor is there any known or identifiable genetic construct that physically determines, somehow, a person is, by design, pre-determined to engage in religious behaviors.

And yet, somehow, those unsubstantiated beliefs are protected from discrimination.

If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.


In reply to by inosent

mkkby Tachyonic Mon, 06/04/2018 - 17:29 Permalink

What if grocery stores and farmers refused to sell them food?  Is that okay too?

Yes, it's just a god damned cake.  But this is a dangerous precedent which the scotus didn't clarify.  Can you now discriminate against any group you don't like and call it freedom of political expression?

Let's see if libtards retaliate by refusing service to whites.  Then conservatives refuse service to blacks, mexicans, etc...  Could get interesting.

In reply to by Tachyonic

mkkby sacredfire Mon, 06/04/2018 - 18:30 Permalink

Shit head, scotus didn't differentiate between cake and frosting art.  They ruled it is okay to discriminate based on political or religious speech.  Got it?  Or is your tarded brain too feeble to grasp this?

We are already seeing white discrimination on college campuses, with so-called authorities looking the other way.  Watch out if we go back to the 50s, 'cause demographics have changed.  Every large company CEO will support white boycotts.

In reply to by sacredfire

verite HenryHall Mon, 06/04/2018 - 15:34 Permalink

No.  How much pigment your skin shows is in your genes/dna as a natural human being.  Though some homosexuals desperately want their "choice" of sex partner to be natural and part of their dna, it is against science - zero homosexual "gene."  So skin pigment doesn't equate to sexual choice.  A person deserves respect as a human being, but choices can be disastrous.  Just look at the sexual disease explosion stats.

In reply to by HenryHall

ebear verite Tue, 06/05/2018 - 02:38 Permalink

Is there a gene for Christianity? 

The way I see it, religious beliefs are far more delusional than the notion that sexual orientation is genetically determined, something which in all likelihood will be proven true in the course of time.

Therefore, if homosexual orientation is a result of errant or simply rare genetic patterns, then shouldn't the same degree of protection be afforded as would be with other genetic disorders or anomalies, such as dwarfism or albinism?

In reply to by verite

AutoLode artichoke Mon, 06/04/2018 - 18:39 Permalink

As of today at least one is not now let’s fix the other - blacks captured blacks in afreeka and would have killed them if they could not be sold as slaves kneegrows should thank heaven for being slaves which brought them to the land of the gravy train instead of dead as POWs to warring tribes

In reply to by artichoke

Akzed HenryHall Mon, 06/04/2018 - 18:45 Permalink

Not really, because being a negro is not behavior that one chooses to engage in that others find abhorrent. So different logic should apply and I'll leave that to you to figure out. Here's how not to think during that process.

Having said that, anyone should be free to serve or not serve anyone for any reason whatsoever. And that belief is a behavior I don't mind being judged for, because I love to win arguments. The market will punish or reward in any case. This is called freedom and you should check it out.

In reply to by HenryHall

ebear Akzed Tue, 06/05/2018 - 03:00 Permalink

"...being a negro is not behavior that one chooses to engage in that others find abhorrent."

By what standard do you determine that homosexual behavior is a choice?  Your religion?

As far as objective analysis is concerned, it's an open question, but the weight of evidence points to at least some basis in biology.

Personally, I find religious beliefs far more abhorrent than homosexuality.  Compare the harm done by religious fanatics vs. homosexuals.  No contest there.  Religion, on the whole, is far more dangerous to society than some small percentage of the population engaging in behavior you personally don't approve of.

In reply to by Akzed