Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[WorldWatcher]

No one here is demanding outlawing homosexuality. Live and let live is what we are asking.

You and others on the right are demanding that gay Americans be denied access to public accommodations simply as a consequence of your fear and ignorance, you and other social conservatives are advocating that gay Americans should be subject to discrimination in their home communities for no other reason than who they are, where measures in jurisdictions seeking to ensure gay Americans are allowed access to public accommodations are necessary, proper, and comport with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Bullshit, this is a State case not federal, if it were federal the American Religious Freedom Act would support the baker, period, end of story.

Elane Photography out of New Mexico was basically the same type of case. (Refusal of services to a same-sex couple for normally offered wedding services in violation of State Public Accommodation law.) It went through the State courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the law.

They appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS rejected the case allowing the NM Supreme Court decision as the final word on the incident.


***************************

Secondly, the RFRA only applies to federal agencies. In the case of City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional for application against State law.



>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

You and others on the right are demanding that gay Americans be denied access to public accommodations simply as a consequence of your fear and ignorance, you and other social conservatives are advocating that gay Americans should be subject to discrimination in their home communities for no other reason than who they are, where measures in jurisdictions seeking to ensure gay Americans are allowed access to public accommodations are necessary, proper, and comport with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Bullshit, this is a State case not federal, if it were federal the American Religious Freedom Act would support the baker, period, end of story.

Elane Photography out of New Mexico was basically the same type of case. (Refusal of services to a same-sex couple for normally offered wedding services in violation of State Public Accommodation law.) It went through the State courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the law.

They appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS rejected the case allowing the NM Supreme Court decision as the final word on the incident.


***************************

Secondly, the RFRA only applies to federal agencies. In the case of City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional for application against State law.



>>>>

Did you fail to read past the IF, the dumb ass brought up the commerce clause which is federal, that's why I pointed out that is was a State case.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bullshit, this is a State case not federal, if it were federal the American Religious Freedom Act would support the baker, period, end of story.

Elane Photography out of New Mexico was basically the same type of case. (Refusal of services to a same-sex couple for normally offered wedding services in violation of State Public Accommodation law.) It went through the State courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the law.

They appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS rejected the case allowing the NM Supreme Court decision as the final word on the incident.


***************************

Secondly, the RFRA only applies to federal agencies. In the case of City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional for application against State law.



>>>>

Did you fail to read past the IF, the dumb ass brought up the commerce clause which is federal, that's why I pointed out that is was a State case.

No I didn't stop reading past the IF.

The Colorado case has NOT proceeded to the Federal level yet. It is entirely within the bounds of State action - at this point.

I was commenting on the rest of your statement that said the RFRA would support the baker "end of story". The reality is it dosen't for the reasons I mentioned. One, the SCOTUS has already rejected an appeal of a similar case which cited the RFRA allowing the State ruling to stand. Secondly, the application of the RFRA for State law has already been found unconstitutional.

So your "end of story" citing the RFRA was incorrect.


>>>>

 

[OKTexas]

Elane Photography out of New Mexico was basically the same type of case. (Refusal of services to a same-sex couple for normally offered wedding services in violation of State Public Accommodation law.) It went through the State courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the law.

They appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS rejected the case allowing the NM Supreme Court decision as the final word on the incident.


***************************

Secondly, the RFRA only applies to federal agencies. In the case of City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional for application against State law.



>>>>

Did you fail to read past the IF, the dumb ass brought up the commerce clause which is federal, that's why I pointed out that is was a State case.

No I didn't stop reading past the IF.

The Colorado case has NOT proceeded to the Federal level yet. It is entirely within the bounds of State action - at this point.

I was commenting on the rest of your statement that said the RFRA would support the baker "end of story". The reality is it dosen't for the reasons I mentioned. One, the SCOTUS has already rejected an appeal of a similar case which cited the RFRA allowing the State ruling to stand. Secondly, the application of the RFRA for State law has already been found unconstitutional.

So your "end of story" citing the RFRA was incorrect.


>>>>

Wrong, because I stipulated "IF" it were a federal case the RFRA would support the baker. I am fully aware that it is not binding of the States though many States have passed a similar law, unfortunately not all.

 

[DriftingSand]

There is no prohibition on alcohol in the bible, he'll Catholics drink it Sundays all the time. Blue laws are vestiges of the temperance movement, which while supported by some Christians was opposed by catholics.

As for Sundays off, we get Saturdays off too. Care to blame the Jews for that one?

Well, no, I thank the Labor Movement for the Weekends. That's kind of awesome.

But here's the problem with the whole, "The Bible Says So". You can get different people reading the bible and coming up with different interpretations.

The Catholics are fine with Booze. The Mormons are dead set against it.

The Jews and Seventh Day Adventists are against shellfish. Everyone else is fine.

But, no we need to totally let whatever whacky church you belong to dictate what the rest of us do.

So the church is preventing gay couples from buying wedding cakes?

Ain't "debating" these geniuses fun?

 

[Mac1958]

There is no prohibition on alcohol in the bible, he'll Catholics drink it Sundays all the time. Blue laws are vestiges of the temperance movement, which while supported by some Christians was opposed by catholics.

As for Sundays off, we get Saturdays off too. Care to blame the Jews for that one?

Well, no, I thank the Labor Movement for the Weekends. That's kind of awesome.

But here's the problem with the whole, "The Bible Says So". You can get different people reading the bible and coming up with different interpretations.

The Catholics are fine with Booze. The Mormons are dead set against it.

The Jews and Seventh Day Adventists are against shellfish. Everyone else is fine.

But, no we need to totally let whatever whacky church you belong to dictate what the rest of us do.

So the church is preventing gay couples from buying wedding cakes?

Dammit, I almost spit out my coffee.

Too funny.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Did you fail to read past the IF, the dumb ass brought up the commerce clause which is federal, that's why I pointed out that is was a State case.

No I didn't stop reading past the IF.

The Colorado case has NOT proceeded to the Federal level yet. It is entirely within the bounds of State action - at this point.

I was commenting on the rest of your statement that said the RFRA would support the baker "end of story". The reality is it dosen't for the reasons I mentioned. One, the SCOTUS has already rejected an appeal of a similar case which cited the RFRA allowing the State ruling to stand. Secondly, the application of the RFRA for State law has already been found unconstitutional.

So your "end of story" citing the RFRA was incorrect.


>>>>

Wrong, because I stipulated "IF" it were a federal case the RFRA would support the baker. I am fully aware that it is not binding of the States though many States have passed a similar law, unfortunately not all.

State public accommodations laws are Constitutional because they're authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

The constitutionality of state laws are determined by Constitutional case law, such as the measures in Colorado and New Mexico.

That you don't like or disagree with Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizing state public accommodations laws is as usual irrelevant.

 

[martybegan]

You and others on the right are demanding that gay Americans be denied access to public accommodations simply as a consequence of your fear and ignorance, you and other social conservatives are advocating that gay Americans should be subject to discrimination in their home communities for no other reason than who they are, where measures in jurisdictions seeking to ensure gay Americans are allowed access to public accommodations are necessary, proper, and comport with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Bullshit, this is a State case not federal, if it were federal the American Religious Freedom Act would support the baker, period, end of story.

Elane Photography out of New Mexico was basically the same type of case. (Refusal of services to a same-sex couple for normally offered wedding services in violation of State Public Accommodation law.) It went through the State courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the law.

They appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS rejected the case allowing the NM Supreme Court decision as the final word on the incident.


***************************

Secondly, the RFRA only applies to federal agencies. In the case of City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional for application against State law.



>>>>

They didn't reject the case, they just did not hear it, there is a difference. The case needs to be brought before federal appeals courts first, which I believe is the reason they did not hear it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So we're still pretending this is about "the law", huh?

.

 

[JoeB131]

So the church is preventing gay couples from buying wedding cakes?

The churches are telling homophobes it's okay to discriminate.
Which is just as bad.

You have a business, you offer a service, you offer it to anyone who can pay.

Period.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So we're still pretending this is about "the law", huh?

.

Of course it is.

We settled this issue 50 years ago when we struck down Jim Crow.

 

[Seawytch]

You can call bullshit caviar, but it is still bullshit.

I suppose YOU can and you can disagree with all the Christians that don't see the bible as being anti gay.

Bigots have always thought their religious texts justified their bigotry.

I gave you the New Testament references. Make your case. Go for it.

You gave references that had nothing to do with loving, consensual same sex relationships. What the sexually frustrated (probably because he was a closeted gay man) Paul was talking about was the predatory sexual relations practiced by the Romans. Romans raped male boy slaves.

Bigots effectively made the case that the bible is opposed to desegregation and interracial marriage too (and they thought they were just as "right" as you believe you are)

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bullshit, this is a State case not federal, if it were federal the American Religious Freedom Act would support the baker, period, end of story.

Elane Photography out of New Mexico was basically the same type of case. (Refusal of services to a same-sex couple for normally offered wedding services in violation of State Public Accommodation law.) It went through the State courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the law.

They appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS rejected the case allowing the NM Supreme Court decision as the final word on the incident.


***************************

Secondly, the RFRA only applies to federal agencies. In the case of City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional for application against State law.



>>>>

They didn't reject the case, they just did not hear it, there is a difference. The case needs to be brought before federal appeals courts first, which I believe is the reason they did not hear it.

#1 No they rejected the case, they did "hear" (reviewed the briefs by interested parties) it - they choose not to accept it. After loosing the case in the New Mexico Supreme Court the case was appealed to the SCOTUS, both parties provided their bri efsand the SCOTUS reviewed the applicatio, response, and amici submissions in session. In the SCOTUS there is something called the "Rule of Four". When a case is made to the SCOTUS the Justices review the case and then vote as to whether to accept it or reject it. Of the 9 Justices it only take 4 to accept a case for review. At least 6 of the 9 Justices voted against reviewing the case - that is a rejection.


#2 The idea that SCOTUS cases must go through lower federal courts first is incorrect. A party can appeal a lower federal court, however they can also appeal the ruling of a State Supreme court on federal grounds to answer questions of merit on the United States Constitution. This was the process in the Elane Photography case, it went through the lower State Courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court, the NMSC decision was then appealed the the SCOTUS who rejected it on the merits - not on procedure.


U.S. Supreme Court
http://government.lawyers.com/appeal-to-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states.html


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Well, no, I thank the Labor Movement for the Weekends. That's kind of awesome.

But here's the problem with the whole, "The Bible Says So". You can get different people reading the bible and coming up with different interpretations.

The Catholics are fine with Booze. The Mormons are dead set against it.

The Jews and Seventh Day Adventists are against shellfish. Everyone else is fine.

But, no we need to totally let whatever whacky church you belong to dictate what the rest of us do.

So the church is preventing gay couples from buying wedding cakes?

Dammit, I almost spit out my coffee.

Too funny.

.

Yeah, because homophobia and trying to rationalize it is hilarious.

So let's be perfectly honest here, guy. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take it on faith that you aren't a homophobe, even though you seem to want to make common cause with them.

But at the end of the day, you guys know you lost the marriage argument, and now you are arguing "Can I please still be a homophobic asshole in my place of business?"

To which we are answering, "No. No, you can't."

And having known people who were fired for being gay, and how much trouble that caused in their life, I have no problem making some bible thumping asshole either bake a cake with two plastic dudes on top, or you can close down your business.

I really don't care which.

 

[Seawytch]

The chapters you quoted have nothing to do with loving, committed same sex relationships.

When homosexuals use the term "committed" how many sexual partners fit into that definition of committed?

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.​

I'm pretty sure the bible speaks out against all promiscuity, gay or straight does it not?

Durex's Global Sex Survey has found that 44% of adults worldwide have had one-night extramarital sex and 22% have had an affair.[6] According to a 2004 United States survey,[7] 16% of married partners have had extramarital sex, nearly twice as many men as women, while an additional 30% have fantasized about extramarital sex.​

So...it would appear that men have affairs more than women and when you have gay men in a relationship, you've got twice as many men, increasing the likelihood of cheating. Imagine that...

 

[Seawytch]

This issue, in my opinion, feels like an attack on any business owner who believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Why can't a person run his or her business in accordance with the beliefs and value judgments that person has? Our society has come a long way, but I feel we are blindly marching towards a black storm cloud. In a free society, all business owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they wish. On the other hand, all customers should be allowed to patron any business they wish, and leave if they do not like the way certain businesses are run. Instead, this man, Jack Phillips, is being forced—by our own government—to abandon our morals and beliefs if we want to be able to run our own business in America. Does anyone besides me find this to be yet another stone in the pathway to communism?

It's fascism. Now we're supposed to scrap our beliefs and morals to appease everyone. If you would, please tell me this: are Neo-Nazis afforded this same right, to go to a cake store run by a homosexual, and order a cake that viciously insults homosexuals? Is it true that turnabout is fair play, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander? Or will we see that this law only affects people, and not everyone as it should? If it's the latter, then hypocrisy abounds, and our nation is being destroyed—corrupted—from within.

It would be better if all business owners—homosexuals included—could choose who they wish to serve, and that customers may choose who they wish to patronize, or not to.

Segregationists and anti miscegenationists had to "abandon their faith" or their business when the CRA was passed. Racist bakers had to bake cake for those they didn't even consider full humans.

Until I can refuse to serve a Christian (Federal law prohibits it), he shouldn't be able to refuse to serve me.

 

[Seawytch]

Repeal the equal access laws then....then businesses everywhere can refuse service to blacks, to women, to hispanics, to handicapped too.

Yup...that's all I'm saying. You shouldn't get to throw my gay ass out of my establishment if I can't throw your Christian ass outta mine.

And you absolutely should be able to do both.

Federal law says I can't. Until you get rid of the one that says I have to serve the Christian, he should have to serve me too.

 

[Seawytch]

There is nothing in the bible that says it's a sin to be of a different race. Segregation was discriminatory, plain and simple. However this baker does not refuse to serve gays. He only declined to bake them a cake for a gay wedding as he cannot participate in or support any gay themed event, otherwise he'd be in violation of his faith. Not following the teachings of his faith would be equivalent to renouncing his faith. He has a strong case, and the ruling will get overturned ... unless someone repeals the First Amendment before then.

That's what YOU believe. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists believed that it WAS a sin to associate with those that had the "Mark of Cain" on them.

They were "forced" to serve those sinful animals that they didn't consider full human. What about their religious liberties?

As a practicing Catholic, I am aware that the Catholic Church has never associated "Mark of Cain" with skin color. So no one in my family has ever supported segregation. However, getting back to the topic at hand, Mr.Phillips has never stated that he would refuse to serve gays, on the contrary he would gladly provide them service. What he won't do is participate in any activity that supports a gay lifestyle as it would be in conflict with his faith. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is one such activity. Not following the teachings of his faith means that he has effectively renounced his faith. According to the First Amendment, no one should be required to give up their faith. We provide asylum for folks from other countries who were prevented by their governments from practicing their faith, yet we are asking Mr.Phillips to abandon his faith. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I hope Mr.Phillips lawyer points out these facts when presenting his appeal. He will get this order overturned.

It's Mr. Phillips that's the hypocrite. He baked a cake for a dog wedding.

It doesn't matter what YOU believe about blacks in the bible, racists believe it. Why are their religious beliefs less worthy than yours?

 

[martybegan]

Elane Photography out of New Mexico was basically the same type of case. (Refusal of services to a same-sex couple for normally offered wedding services in violation of State Public Accommodation law.) It went through the State courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the law.

They appealed to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS rejected the case allowing the NM Supreme Court decision as the final word on the incident.


***************************

Secondly, the RFRA only applies to federal agencies. In the case of City of Boerne v. Flores the federal RFRA was found unconstitutional for application against State law.



>>>>

They didn't reject the case, they just did not hear it, there is a difference. The case needs to be brought before federal appeals courts first, which I believe is the reason they did not hear it.

#1 No they rejected the case, they did "hear" (reviewed the briefs by interested parties) it - they choose not to accept it. After loosing the case in the New Mexico Supreme Court the case was appealed to the SCOTUS, both parties provided their bri efsand the SCOTUS reviewed the applicatio, response, and amici submissions in session. In the SCOTUS there is something called the "Rule of Four". When a case is made to the SCOTUS the Justices review the case and then vote as to whether to accept it or reject it. Of the 9 Justices it only take 4 to accept a case for review. At least 6 of the 9 Justices voted against reviewing the case - that is a rejection.


#2 The idea that SCOTUS cases must go through lower federal courts first is incorrect. A party can appeal a lower federal court, however they can also appeal the ruling of a State Supreme court on federal grounds to answer questions of merit on the United States Constitution. This was the process in the Elane Photography case, it went through the lower State Courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court, the NMSC decision was then appealed the the SCOTUS who rejected it on the merits - not on procedure.


U.S. Supreme Court
Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States - Lawyers.com


>>>>

From thinkprogress:

Nothing more can be read into Monday’s announcement that the Supreme Court will not take this case with any degree of certainty. The Elane Photography case was listed on a long list of cases the justices decided not to hear without any explanation of their reason for rejecting the case. As a general rule, the Court’s decision not to take a case says nothing about how the justices view the case on the merits. The justices may deny a petition seeking Supreme Court review because they thought that a case had a jurisdictional problem, because they want the issue to spend more time developing in lower courts, or even because they just find a case uninteresting. So there is no guarantee that the Court won’t decide to hear a very similar case the next time a professional photographer refuses to take pictures of a gay couple.

From Scotusblog:

Whether that switch in the nature of the case played a role in the Supreme Court’s denial of review is unknown, except inside the Court; it customarily does not give reasons for such a denial. The New Mexico case involved a ruling that turning away a customer from access to a business open to the public based on the customer’s sexual identity violated the state’s law against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Basically when Certiorari is denied by the SC, they don't give a reason. Unless you have some in at the court my explanation is just as valid as yours.

 

[martybegan]

That's what YOU believe. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists believed that it WAS a sin to associate with those that had the "Mark of Cain" on them.

They were "forced" to serve those sinful animals that they didn't consider full human. What about their religious liberties?

As a practicing Catholic, I am aware that the Catholic Church has never associated "Mark of Cain" with skin color. So no one in my family has ever supported segregation. However, getting back to the topic at hand, Mr.Phillips has never stated that he would refuse to serve gays, on the contrary he would gladly provide them service. What he won't do is participate in any activity that supports a gay lifestyle as it would be in conflict with his faith. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is one such activity. Not following the teachings of his faith means that he has effectively renounced his faith. According to the First Amendment, no one should be required to give up their faith. We provide asylum for folks from other countries who were prevented by their governments from practicing their faith, yet we are asking Mr.Phillips to abandon his faith. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I hope Mr.Phillips lawyer points out these facts when presenting his appeal. He will get this order overturned.

It's Mr. Phillips that's the hypocrite. He baked a cake for a dog wedding.

It doesn't matter what YOU believe about blacks in the bible, racists believe it. Why are their religious beliefs less worthy than yours?

There is nothing in the bible prohibiting dogs having sex. Considering their use in biblical times, it was probably encouraged.