Justice Department sides with baker
The Washington Post reports that the Department of Justice filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of baker Jack Phillips who was found guilty of violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing on religious grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.
“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.
The DOJ’s decision to support Phillips is the latest in a series of steps the Trump administration has taken to rescind Obama administration positions favorable to gay rights and to advance new policies on the issue.
The ACLU’s Louise Melling who is representing the aggrieved gay couple in the case says that she was surprised by the government’s filing;
“Even in an administration that has already made its hostility” toward the gay community clear, Melling said, “I find this nothing short of shocking.”
For those of you who are in love with the ACLU and constantly remind us that they supported the Nazis in Skokie, don’t you find it a little odd that they would force a baker to service a couple, a couple that could probably find a baker in Colorado that would happily provide the same service if they weren’t so lazy as to search for one more accommodating?
This has nothing to do with the administration’s “hostility towards the gay community” and everything to do with freedom. This case only serves to force acceptance of the gay lifestyle down the collective throat of the American public, while violating the rights of free association, and forcing people to violate their personal religious beliefs.
Yeah, the ACLU is great!
Category: Legal
I’m sorry, Jonn, I could have sworn you posted that the DOJ stated, “…violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights.”
I obviously need more coffee.
“don’t you find it a little odd that they would force a baker to service a couple, a couple that could probably find a baker in Colorado that would happily provide the same service if they weren’t so lazy as to search for one more accommodating?”
Lazy had nothing to do with it Jonn, they went to this particular baker intentionally, because they knew this would be his reaction, and they wanted the notoriety. I used to work in that area, and less than 5 miles away is a bakery run by three gay guys. I forget the name, but it’s obvious what their preferences are, from the name, and the huge rainbow flag on their sign. These two had a much better option for their “wedding” cake, if that had been their actual goal..
And good on the DOJ for finally doing their job, now hopefully, SCOTUS will actually uphold the law, and exonerate the poor baker.
You can’t see it, but this is my shocked face….
It’s too bad that the bakers will probably never be made whole after all this mess is adjudicated. But one can dream …. I dream of some sort of fund that could be used to repay all the money that the bakers — and other such victims — have spent; something that would put the bakers back in the black.
Counter-sue.
Then counter-sue some more.
Sue those faggots until they are drained dry.
Then sue them some more.
A coworker and friend of mine who neither hides nor flaunts her preference for other females had a similar take on the last high-profile gay wedding cake incident. She said it was pretty blatantly obvious that the gay couple specifically targeted the bakery so they could get their 15 minutes of fame, which she found pretty disgusting.
I think it is likely this was far more than just the couple seeking attention. I’d wager that a good investigator could find that this baker was zeroed in on tighter than an ISIS headquarters by some gay organization (read branch of Democrat party) as a both a test case and to establish legal precedent. That could then be used to intimidate and extort political “donations” from all manner of small businesses in the Jesse Jackson fashion.
Always, always…follow the money.
This was most likely a setup like the one earlier in Oregon, where two homosexuals sought out someone they knew would not oblige them and thus sought out the confrontation so they could profit from it by screwing that bakery owner over. If you seek out confrontation, you should not be allowed to profit from it. And this is not at all about “gay rights”. It is about the homosexual agenda and their desire to be treated in a superior manner to normal people.
This.
+100
Most definitely a set up. The couple in question lived in Aurora. The shop was in Lakewood. They went 20 miles out of their way to this baker. This was for money.
Along with that flaming homo at Teen Vogue publishing helpful guide to anal sex….that not a “rights” issue, its blatant indoctrination of our girls…
Not only the chance to shove it in our faces, but also to get $$$ for the ACLU. Lawyers are a business, and their purpose is to make $$$. ‘Nuff said. Of course, notoriety is a plus, also. Generates more $$$. Ask the Cocrane Firm.
What is a gay wedding cake, anyway? Is it adorned with two male figurines with tux trousers down doing it doggy style? Don’t think I’ll want a slice of that…
Chocolate fudge cake with a white cream frosting?
KA-BLAM!
Well played!
It’s not called the Hershey Highway for nothing …
Lucky he wasn’t in Washington state or Oregon! the”All Communist Losers Union” would win there!
I agree. It has nothing to do with hostility toward the gay community. It is nothing more than the course at force of government being used to compel a citizen to do something that they do not wish to do, for whatever reason. 100 years from now, the Mantra will be “the men and women in uniform fought for your right to not be offended”, even though nothing of the sort can be found in the Constitution. Nothing makes me more sick than this. I wish they would all just go to Venezuela and eat cake.
Goddammit
*Coercive force
Except there ain’t no cake in Venezuela, ain’t no food really either…pretty much fucked that country up sideways…socialist prick assholes.
Yeah, but they have Socialism going for them, which is nice.
Just don’t ever call it communism. Please.
There’s nothing to fear from communism.
Everyone knows that.
Bam!
I can’t wait for the SJW protests to start and blame this case on my President, this case started in 2012 but they’ll find some way to spin it against President Trump and his Administration.
It’s tempting to drink of liberal tears, but remember, they are chock full of spirochetes.
A shot of schadenfreude will take care of ’em.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn1eZO43w0M
The rest of us have rights, too, y’know. One of them is to not have to put up with obnoxious attention-hogging jerks who just want to make trouble.
(Was that statement generalized enough, or do I have to water it down some more?)
Que?
Well, I was trying be inclusive of all attention-hogging jerks, Master Sergeant.
No, Ma’am. Beautifully and clearly put.
One wonders how this would have played out had the bakers been Muslim or if they had been Nazis and were refused a big old cake with a swastika.
Liberals are being exposed as hypocrites at every level.
As heathen, non-believing infidel I like how you think here…one wonders why it was only a christian baker that was chosen…
I’ve been of two minds on this for some time…I understand public accommodation law and the civil rights movement…and more recently I’ve started to consider the baker’s perspective primarily for the reasons you mentioned…if they were asking a muslim and a christian it would be much less a problem for me…if you can’t refuse to serve a black man I’m not sure I understand what the problem with serving a gay man is, but then again as I said I’m a fucking heathen so I don’t much care one way or another…but it’s clear this was meant to isolate a christian baker and that irritates the shit out of me, especially since it’s muslims tossing gays off a of building and they seem to get a fucking pass from the liberal twats on the left on a regular basis…
VOV, just for the sake of clarification here, the baker did NOT refuse to serve the gay couple. He stated he’d happily sell them anything they wanted from his case.
What he refused to do was to make a custom cake to celebrate something that went against his strongly held religious beliefs.
To use your example of the black man above, i believe that the appropriate comparison would be refusing to make a BLM cake for a black man, while offering to sell him anything else he had in the store.
I get your point…the business does however offer a custom service to the general public as I understand it…if gays are not a protected class in his state there’s nothing here in the law to create a problem, if gays are a protected class in his state he’s obligated to follow the public accommodation laws as written in his state and sue the state over it or get his congress people to write a different public accommodation law.
Otherwise he’s obligated to follow the law for his type of business.
I understand the homos in this scenario are assholes, because there are probably a ton of homo friendly businesses in their area…so there didn’t really have to be an issue here. But things don’t ever change if no one ever challenges the status quo.
Could go badly for the homos if the law as written doesn’t identify them as a protected class, I’m good with either outcome win or lose.
There should be no ‘protected classes’. Either the law applies equally all the way around, or it should be thrown out.
In regards to a private business, they should not be told by the government who they must serve under penalty of law. If they want to discriminate, that is protected by the first amendment. The only organizations that should be prohibited by law from any discrimination at all is the government since they are here to serve all the people as part of their reason for existing.
Actually, baking a cake that kinda tastes flat or not quite right might not be a bad way to go. Dash of Ipecac, little Ex-Lax. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?
Hey, remember in Junior High School getting a bar of ex lax and wrapping it up in a Hershey wrapper and then try and give it to one of your friends.
With that prank, I would feel sorry for the cleaning crew having to use a stepladder to clean the ceiling of the honeymoon suite…
The reason they targeted Christians, is that Christians, by and large, do not become violent just because their beliefs and/or liberties get trampled.
Indeed that is my point as well…we all sort of know why it wasn’t a muslim baker that was chosen.
That, and the potential implications of a “sacred-cow victim class vs. sacred-cow victim class” altercation. Nobody on the left wants to find out what that kind of critical mass would look like.
Oddly enough, Steven Crowder anticipated that idea, and recorded this video…
Exactly. A muslim baker would have chased them out of his store with a scimitar.
Years ago when the framers were talking about this country, one of the discussions was on “when rights clash.” Madison wrote that in a society, all rights are not absolute and subject to some restrictions for the benefit of society.
When the rights of two people clash, the government has to rule in the manner of the least harm. Arguably, the people who wanted a cake bake suffer no harm if they go to another baker. The baker, on the other hand, does suffer harm in being forced to go against his religious and moral convictions. (The interesting thing is that it is only the owner of the business that in the crosshairs. By law, an owner / supervisor cannot force an employee to act contrary to their religious and moral beliefs.)
If the gay couple had walked in and wanted a cake that was sitting in the case with a price tag on it, the baker should have to sell it to them as he has initiated the first part of a contract.
But wedding cakes, (like graphics, design work, art work, photography, etc) are creative and have been viewed as speech. When a person comes into talk about a cake, there is no offer of a contract out there otherwise, all cakes no matter the size and complexity would cost the same. There is no contract offer in place and therefore the artist / baker has the right to not contract with people. To rule otherwise is to place the creative person in the role of a slave to the government with no rights at all.
We ended slavery and it took a lot of bloodshed and heartache to do so. The fact that some people in this world want to re-institute forced labor and work says much about them.
Well said GC.. to change the medium, from cake to a portrait, I’ve never heard of a painter being forced to do a portrait for someone. They offer the service, and enter into contracts as they see fit. I also agree with VOV that this should be settled by SCOTUS once and for all, though unlike him, i very much prefer that the court rule in favor of the baker, and all other business owners, so that like you pointed out, they are not forced into a new form of slavery.
I don’t care really who wins this Fyr…I would like it settled…because I’m not religious I don’t share the same concerns that the baker does. But should he win the case at the SCOTUS level I’m glad for him that it’s settled….
Should it go the other way I’m also good with that and I’ll be happy for the homos…
It doesn’t affect me one or the other…I just tend to take a contrary view from time to time because echo chambers get really fucking boring after a while….
If it goes against the baker, the government can then tell people what they must say. While I know that you have been couching your arguments based on religion and “protected classes,” the right of free speech is independent of religion. So let’s start at the basics, shall we? First, the Supreme Court has already ruled that created works or forms of expression and subject to First Amendment Protection. In this case, the Administrative judge ruled that the government could decide what was “expression” and what was not. That’s dangerous. Horribly dangerous. Secondly, the SCOTUS has ruled that “compelled speech is not free speech.” By that ruling, if a government can say “you have to create a work,” then nothing is off limits in the future. Compelled speech is legal. So in this case, if the rolls were reversed and a religious customer came to a gay baker and asked for a specially designed cake saying “Marriage is Only Between A Man and A Woman,” I would say the gay baker has the right to say “take a hike.” I would argue that a proponent of abortion should not have to design and print a tee-shirt that says “abortion is murder.” A black printer should not have to print flyers for white supremacists. A veteran should not have to print signs calling members of the military “baby killers,” “rapists,” “murderers,” etc. While you seem to say that as long as the group wanting the service is a “protected class,” they company has to do the creative service. There are two things wrong with that thought, in my opinion. First, “protected classes” means the government can decide who is “special” and who is not. Instead of abiding by the 14th Amendment, the government gets to say, “you get the right to force people to act against their religious / moral convictions but you over there don’t because you aren’t a protected class.” Secondly, if the government cannot force people to act against their conscience in standing and reciting the pledge, why should they have the ability to force people to act… Read more »
Well stated.
Ooooooh, the sweet taste of schadenfreude.
The problem with the emphasis on cakes as a “form of expression” is that it still leaves on the table that regular businesses that can’t twist their product into the “expression” category cans still be shut down for similar refusals
Example: the farm in Schaghticoke, New York that was sued because, while they were willing to host the reception of a gay wedding, they weren’t comfortable with hosting the wedding itself. (https://libertyridgefarmny.com/) While they still host wedding receptions, they had to stop all weddings on their property to avoid future lawsuits.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/christian-farm-gay-wedding/2014/08/20/id/589970/
That’s the reality for businesses operating under the sphere of public accommodation laws…
And a true “Justice” Department would use this case as a venue for striking down those laws when they conflict with protected rights of citizens whose only crime was operating a business.
Or upholding public accommodation laws if that were the appropriate response as well.
My first amendment right to free expression stops where your right to be treated equally under the law begins…if I find muslims disgusting because my religion tells me that every religion except mine is an abomination it doesn’t give me the right to refuse to serve them in a business where I invite the public into my facility as a normal part of its operation.
Like I said above these homos are assholes in this case, but this is exactly the sort of case that makes a good choice to put before SCOTUS…as you state we can then settle what makes good precedent instead of 50 variants based on local state iterations of these types of accommodation law.
And for the record I’m good with either outcome. I just prefer it to be on the record that it’s okay to refuse to serve people you don’t agree with or care for, or that it’s not okay to do that….SCOTUS precedents make such things simpler legally for everyone involved.
VOV, I’m curious, how, under public accommodation laws, wholesalers can refuse to sell to the general public?
They don’t invite the public in Poe….you are not welcome inside a wholesaler’s operation unless you are invited personally. Public accommodation is for those businesses whose nature means they are open to the public at all times the business is typically in operation. I’m a manufacturer of printed and packaging materials…the public is not allowed on our premises and we have a secure facility to keep the public out. We only sell to clients who contract our services through a bidding process….we do not invite public customers at any time on premises.
The baker never refused to serve the gay couple. He refused to be a part of an abomination celebration, in which case his rights do NOT end with “public accomodation”. If the marriage were between a gay man and a gay woman, he most likely would have made the cake. If it were between two straight members of the same sex, he would have the right to refuse. If it were a wedding between a man and his computer, he would have the right to refuse. Had nothing to do with either individual’s sexual orientation, it had to do with the particular occasion – too subtle of a context for the hyperbolic leftists to grasp, but I’ll bet you could make that distinction.
The State may, by force, violate his rights, but they cannot cause them to cease to exist as those rights were not granted by the State. Again, subtle difference but VERY distinct.
MRS D and I were married in a small private venue, the owner is an ordained minister and officiated at our wedding. You also have the option of providing your own clergy/judge/ minister whatever. The venue will host gay weddings and receptions, but the owner will not officiate. Seems to satisfy the law in AZ.
The ACLU used to help people in need.
Now they simply go after low hanging fruit and cases that they can “sensationalize” for their own good.
Rattling there chains for their own savor, if you will.
That happened when they all became card-carrying Democrats…
The American Communist Lawyers Union…. I’m pretty sure they all started out that way.. any good they’ve done at any point in their history is either coincidental, or part of the smoke screen to cover their true intentions
Ask the ACLU to help on any kind of 2nd Amentent right in flavor of a civilan . Joe
LARS come out to play!
API is waiting for you.
Who would want to eat a cake baked under the threat of a law suit? That might even be dangerous, it sure as hell would be if I were the baker.
The current leadership of the ACLU is off the rails. Never before have they targeted a POTUS through fundraising and paid slander.
The ACLU is guilty of doing the very thing that they purport to defend people from. This blanket assault and slander of a sitting POTUS is exactly the thing the ACLU should be fighting against.
Apparently using a list of contact information obtained from newly Nationalized Citizens to raise money in their efforts to politically slander a sitting President is unacceptable.
Who holds the ACLU accountable for Civil Rights violations? Who will defend those being assaulted by the ACLU?
ACLU has always been a seditious for profit organization hiding behind claims of civil rights while enriching themselves. This is the standard operating procedure for the left which is why they now create controversy to keep the funds coming in.
Well I guess they wanted their cake and eat it too.
Judicial terrorism. Another great contribute from the seditious left thrust upon Americans if they dare not do what they want.