ALABAMA: Roy Moore’s Hate Group Celebrates Supreme Court’s Decision To Hear Case Of Anti-Gay Baker

Via press release from Christian Newswire:

The Foundation for Moral Law, a nonprofit foundation dedicated to the defense of religious liberty, applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari to Masterpiece Cakeshop in its case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Foundation President Kayla Moore stated, “We are excited that the Court has agreed to hear this case, because the Court accepts less than 1% of cases presented to them. The Foundation was the only organization that filed an amicus brief urging the Court to accept this case, and we are especially gratified that the Court expressly referred to the Foundation’s brief in its order granting certiorari.”

The Commission had ruled that Masterpiece had discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to prepare a wedding cake for their marriage. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece, insisted that his refusal was not based on animus toward homosexuals but rather upon sincere religious convictions.

Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe said the Masterpiece case has the potential to become a major landmark decision for religious liberty, and the Foundation will follow up with another amicus brief on the merits.

He added: “The issue is whether persons with sincere religious beliefs will be forced to violate their consciences by participating in the preparations for a same-sex wedding. At a time when the State of California has instituted a ban on state-sponsored travel to states that protect the religious rights of their citizens, someone needs to stand up for those who believe in traditional marriage. The Foundation will continue doing exactly that.”

  • vorpal 😼

    I have a sincere and deeply held religious conviction that Kayla and Roy Moore should have their vocal folds removed.

    I refuse to not be accommodated!

    • Danieruw

      I love that you used “vocal folds”!

      • vorpal 😼

        =grins=
        I’m married to a biologist. If I got that wrong, he would wouldn’t spank me.

    • UrsusArctos

      In both cases it would be hemorrhoidectomies, as they’re always talking out of their asses.

      • vorpal 😼

        Let’s just dip them in vats of crazy glue and call it a day.
        A very wonderful, quiet day.

  • JT

    “The Foundation for What We Laughingly Call Moral Law” more like.

    • vorpal 😼

      They look deeply unhappy in every photo and every video I’ve seen of them.
      I don’t think they’re capable of laughter or joy, and they don’t want anyone else to be, either.

      • Todd20036

        When even thoughts that are remotely pleasurable could get you sent to hell, it’s hard to be happy about anything.

      • Cattleya1

        The essence of true, nasty puritans.

  • You just revel, moron. Let’s see how big you smile when SCOTUS calls discrimination on Baker’s ass.

    • Todd20036

      If they call discrimination…

  • Jay George
  • Ninja0980

    What if someone has a sincere religious beliefs that those with criminal records should be denied service Mr and Mrs. Moore?
    What will you say when your son is refused service everywhere?

    • another_steve

      I say we forgive his son for hunting without permission and hunting over bait (whatever the fuck “hunting over bait” means).

      I say we punish him, though.

      In my basement, with straps and feathers.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96f4c5df9811d81bbed0e98324ed856061c4e00fa0f3d57751f16355fa96290f.png

      • Jonathan Smith

        Only if I get to watch

      • j.martindale

        what is commonly referred to as a shit eating grin.

        • Albertadcastro

          I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Here’s what I do
          !kq50c:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs50OfficeBook/GetPaid$97/Hour β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«:::!kq50g:.

        • Heatherjedwards

          I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home.
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !yc55d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GooogleFinancialJobsCash55BuzzClub/GetPay$97/Hour β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…βœ«β˜…β˜…:::::!yc55k….

      • Todd20036

        You’re disgusting Steve.

        I like to think that’s partly my fault.

        • another_steve

          Well let’s just say you’re not exactly a JMG role model when it comes to chastity, honor and virtue, girl.

      • April

        I believe it has to do with putting food out to attract whatever one is hunting.

        • another_steve

          Yes, that sounds right. Though isn’t that an odd requirement; you can hunt and kill an animal but you may not lure it to you via bait.

          Strange.

  • FAEN

    We’ll see how celebratory you are after the case.

  • Sam_Handwich

    isn’t the real legal question here whether states can enforce their own public accommodation/anti-discrimination laws?

    i don’t know how scotus could find for the bigots without trashing every such law in the country.

    • Natty Enquirer

      That’s exactly what the bigots are hoping for. Once the door is open, they can start getting back to the days of Jim Crow.

    • Ninja0980

      They can’t, which is what the bigots are counting on.
      They want to gut the entire Civil Rights act.

    • And what makes you think they won’t do exactly that. Have you ever discussed these issues with a conservative? Many of them are against such laws and think that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

    • abqdan

      The 1st and 14th amendments provide that small sliver of opportunity for SCOTUS to enforce their view on a state. So you argue that the state law infringes on the business owner’s first amendment rights. With the court leaning right, the addition of the far right Christian Gorsuch, and the potential for an even more fundamentalist Christian judge replacing Kennedy (think someone like Roy Moore…) they will manufacture the reasoning to fit their desired conclusion. Marriage equality and reproductive rights will be next.

  • It always has been an idiotic controversy. The only way SCOTUS falls for it is if it is on ideological lines. Beyond being an ENORMOUS Pandora’s Box (with implications for all other religions, even made up ones, and ANYBODY that could be deemed unworthy customers), there isn’t even doctrine behind it. It’s all bigotry. There is no commandment that a Christian can’t sell their wares to someone who doesn’t follow the tenets of the church. And if there WERE, why should the law or the public be bound by it? If you’re so religiously sensitive (again, they’re not, they’re bigots), DON’T go into retail!

    • j.martindale

      There is no way a decision could be crafted permitting the supremacy of sincere religious beliefs in society that wouldn’t undermine the rule of law. Chaos follows.

      • We have Scalia to thank for what should be the controlling precedent: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith

        “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs
        excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law
        prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the
        contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise
        jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

        And do note that Scalia cites over 100 years of rulings supporting that conclusion.

        • j.martindale

          Terrific cite!

    • abqdan

      It seems idiotic, but there is a definite plan in place to create a quasi-Christian state. The extremes of religion are a breeding ground for mindless support, and the monied interests in the Republican camp realized the power of using religious rallying cries decades ago. Wrap yourself in the flag and hold up a cross and you can get what you want politically because ill-educated people are easily influenced to blindly follow that god and country lead. I think they’ve scored a huge win with Gorsuch – a man who basically refused to answer any questions in his hearings, but is now showing his extreme right tendency. I believe they will find a way to overturn the state law and allow discrimination using religion as an excuse. And that’s just the first step in unraveling our civil rights. Of course it will be easier if Kennedy retires, because they will replace him with someone further right even than Gorsuch.

      • And how many days would it be after the decision before Muslims use it to avoid some other group or law, and Christians raise holy hell about it? Or a newly invented religion arises to get around something else?

        I renew my suggestion from years ao, that we gays make our orientation effectively a religion. We already have Joe.My.God. as our deity. . . Why the hell not, the Christians have already said (exhaustively) that you may not question the veracity of their beliefs.

        • Mlawrence

          We’re working on it. The Church of God and You. G.A.Y. Working on the scriptures now. They will be fabulous.

        • abqdan

          Oh it won’t take the Gorsuch court long to rule that Muslims are not a religion…

      • David Neiwert wrote a series several years ago (I forget which blog it was on, but I think he turned it into a book) on the rise of fascism in the 1920s and ’30s. The take away was that it was an alliance between big business, the religious establishment, and government.

        Draw your own conclusions.

    • June Gordon

      “implications for all other religions, even made up ones”

      Oh honey, there aren’t any other kind.

  • Rob Spangler

    Kayla honey, the Supremes are going to slap you people down so hard you won’t wake up for week! This is the Woolworth Lunch counter issue that you people want back so bad you can taste it. Kayla honey would you like another slice of my maid Minnie’s pie? Yummy, yummy , yummy! Eat my shit lady!

    • The_Wretched

      I’m not sure, Gorsuch is on the same team as Roy Moore.

      • UrsusArctos

        So was Scalia. Nothing much changes until Kennedy retires.

  • yes b’y

    Well Fuck I, the sick bastards they have a coffin cake
    http://masterpiececakes.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/over-the-hill.jpg

    • yes b’y

      well the joke is on me, it’s a bday cake and it’s Ed’s thirties RIPing. Still sick.

      • OdieDenCO

        too bad. a coffin coffee cake would probably sell

        • GeoffreyPS

          I wonder if they stop selling it in October because they don’t support Halloween. Who knew cakes could be so hard???

  • The_Wretched

    If your “right to conscience” includes violating others civil rights to be protected from discrimination, maybe your conscience is defective. There’s nothing in the social compact that says your religion gives you a right to violate others.

    • I think that’s a key issue, and one the state needs to keep front and center: there are limits to all rights, those limits being reached when the exercise of one’s civil rights violates the rights of others: “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”

  • JWC

    roy Moore hasn’t he died yet That Bunch of Alabama which wee Jeffy is part of

  • We should all be nervous about this case because it’s not just about gay weddings and bakers. The court could seriously undermine public accommodations laws in this case.

    • Falconlights

      You took the keystrokes right out of my fingers.

  • EdmondWherever

    Questions the court should ask the defendants…

    Do you turn away any potential customers who violate your religious precepts, such as divorcees, single parents, or felons?

    Didn’t you agree to make cakes for a wedding for dogs?

    Can any merchant use this excuse to deny service to potential customers, if the merchant’s religion has an issue with other minorities such as Jews, blacks or the disabled?

    If you sell a tray of brownies to a gay couple for use in their wedding, instead of a wedding cake, aren’t you still β€œparticipating” in their wedding?

    • BJORN RAGNVALDR

      Don’t forget about eating shellfish, pork and other dietary restrictions. Oh, and women who are bleeding need to stay outside the village and not be touched for they are unclean.
      Let’s never forget wearing garments of two different fabrics, lycra and polyester were the nasty queens of doom that took down sodom.
      I however have given sodom a new life, a glorious new life.

      • EdmondWherever

        That’s all a bit outside the scope of what a baker does, I don’t think it would be relative to the case.

        • CB

          I think what he’s saying is that if we’re going to be biblical, any customer who does any of those things should not be served.

          • EdmondWherever

            I suppose so. Although, “sincerely held” doesn’t have to mean “biblical”. Of course, that would eliminate one or two of my questions, too.

  • Henry Auvil

    If your passion is baking and icing cakes, and you refuse to sell to gays, you are clearly in the wrong business.

  • Skokieguy [Larry]

    Corporations have largely sided with us, not because its the moral or right thing to do, but because it makes economic sense. We are the fortunate benefactors of companies like Target and Starbucks and the companies that pressured Indiana and NC to change their harmful laws.

    But these stupid small business owners are fighting to reduce their customer base. As someone said (I can’t take credit), Trump supporters would burn down their own house if a black neighbor might choke on the smoke for 15 minutes.

    This is very much the same scenario.

  • j.martindale

    I try to look at this totally dispassionately, without the bias of being gay, and I think the people that argue for the supremacy of “sincerely held religious beliefs” cannot prevail. They presume that the behavior permitted by their beliefs is either benevolent or harmless. There is NO reason to think that would be so. People have deeply held religious beliefs about animal sacrifice, about sexual molestation of girls, about slavery, about medical treatment of sick kids, about child abuse and many, many more issues in addition to questions of discrimination against gays. Sincerely held religious beliefs are every bit as capable of being horrible and destructive as any passion man is capable of.

    The courts will need to realize that a line must be drawn, and the only line that makes sense is the line of the law. The law must regulate behavior, whether it is driven by malicious intent or driven by sincerely held religious beliefs. If the law is not the final decider of what limits the actions of the “true believer,” then nothing is. And I cannot imagine a court in the United States will relinquish the rule of law to a rule of religion.

    • coram nobis

      There’s also the whole bit about free exercise of religion being in the same sentence as a ban on an official religious establishment. The whole point of the recent “religious freedom” campaign seems to be to enshrine one religious tenet — marriage being between a man and a housewife — of one particular streak of Christianity. The idea that it would overwhelm, say, the rights of customers engaging in normal commerce — see, e.g., the old civil rights cases of Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. or Katzenbach v. McClung (both 1964) — makes a mockery of the rest of the Constitution.

    • -M-

      Exactly, you can’t have everybody deciding arbitrarily for themselves that some laws just don’t apply to them.

    • Randy503

      I agree with you. But I think that SCOTUS (at least those who voted to take the case) are thinking that they will limit their decision to just gays.

      That’s how they do it. TO overturn decades of jurisprudence in one case isn’t easy or prudent. Few Justices will sign on to that. So they will just say that anyone can discriminate against gays in business because there are no legal protections for us nationwide, and hey, it’s the Gay Exception to all law — anyone who is religious gets to discriminate against gays.

      There are four solid votes for that: Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. They are probably thinking Kennedy will retire (that’s the rumor) and by then another one of their own will be on the bench, and voila — they get what they want.

      Then later down the road, they can use this case to estalibsh that anyone can discriminate against others they dislike. But this is the most important first step for them.

      • j.martindale

        I don’t believe there is a logical path for them to make a decision based on discrimination against one group. There is nothing Constitutional about that approach.

        What they might try is something along the lines of the way they handled conscientious objectors in the past. The idea is that the state must make an effort to make allowances for matters of conscience or prove that the state has a vital interest in prosecuting the law. The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t resolve anything, and it will be thrown back in the courts time after time as Plaintiffs and Defendants argue about whether the state has a vital interest. And different states will come to opposite conclusions on the same type cases.

  • glass

    Show me in your sacred bible where it says, “No cake for gays.”
    Your “sincerely held religious belief” is just as made up as your “religion”.

    I say, cake for everyone!
    https://images-gmi-pmc.edge-generalmills.com/7e0171a3-5a01-43ff-82da-9ec1c61d001c.jpg

  • coram nobis

    One oddity noted at SCOTUSblog: “… the court set a new record by granting cert in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 16-111, after 14 relists …”

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/relist-watch-retirement-watch-edition/

    From a legal website, a definition:

    A relist occurs when the Justices consider a petition at private conference but decline to act on it, redistributing it for the following conference. The practice is now an accepted feature of the certiorari process. β€œ[A]t least one relist is generally viewed as a necessary step on the way to a grant of further review …. A relist remains an effective prerequisite to a grant of certiorari.”

    http://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/relist-requisite-certiorari/

    I don’t have a good feeling about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. I’m guessing that Gorsuch was the fourth vote to grant cert.

    • Randy503

      I’m sure he was. They now have four solid votes to allow discrimination. all they have to do is wait for kennedy to retire, and they’ll have their fifth vote.

  • UrsusArctos

    I’m HOPING the positive decision of the appellate court is affirmed before Justice Kennedy retires. Kennedy knows that the court’s shifting right and would LOVE to undo Obergefell v Hodges, which Kennedy is proud of being the deciding vote on.

  • colin payne

    Who defines what constitutes a “sincere religious conviction”? Is there a metric? Or does the “believer” just make it up as he or she goes along?

    • CB

      This is what I’ve been saying all along to anyone who would listen. Unless that can be empirically defined, it’s vague and unenforceable. If it cannot be defined, it can’t be ruled on, and this case should fail.
      It probably won’t, but I would also argue that anything that this person considers a sin should preclude him from providing service to any sinner. Otherwise, it is animus and demonstrably so.

  • -M-

    Making and frosting a cake. That’s all he was asked to do. This flavor, that style, ready on the fourth, pick up or delivery. πŸ–•πŸ–•πŸ–•πŸ–•πŸ–•πŸ–•πŸ–•

    • -M-

      He doesn’t have to purchase cake toppers that feature same-sex couples if he doesn’t want to, but it’s none of his business what the customers put on their cake once it’s paid for or at what occasion they serve it.

  • j.martindale

    So the issue is whether there will be a rule of law or the rule of the individual based on his/her religious superstitions. DUH!

  • TheManicMechanic

    Nonprofit? I doubt that very highly.

  • Snarky

    Read Sotomayor’s dissent today in the case of the Missouri church that won tax dollars to refurbish their playground. She is pissed at the SCOTUS’ recent trend toward favoring religious expression over the Establishment Clause. She said today’s ruling “leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”

    Meanwhile, Gorsuch was with the majority in ruling in favor of the church, but Roberts added a footnote which places a possible limit on the opinion. Gorsuch disagreed with any such possible limit. He said the Missouri law was β€œdiscrimination against religious exercise.” Fucking yikes.

  • Johnny Wyeknot

    This shit again?

  • Squicky

    I think we’re going to lose this particular cake case. The shop owner has a pretty consistent history of limiting other “offending” cakes – he doesn’t make cakes that contain alcohol or reference abortion, divorce, or atheism (who the fuck buys cakes with THOSE messages?!) all based on his religious views. His attorneys are craftily arguing that he was more than willing to do business with the coupe for other products, and offered them a ‘blank’ cake, but would not personally decorate the “marriage” message. I think it will be hard to prove a broad refusal to provide any service to a protected class. Interestingly, they’ve also argued that he would not sell a same-sex themed wedding cake to heterosexual people either, (though who knows why they’d want one )in an attempt to prove that the orientation of the buyer is irrelevant when it comes to this religious message.

  • j.martindale

    β€œThe issue is whether persons with sincere religious beliefs will be forced to violate their consciences” by following state laws regarding discrimination. It is that simple. Will a “Court of Law” decide the law can be supplemented by an individual’s conscience whenever the individual wishes? Only if the court wants to go out of business.

  • stvnc44

    If the SCOTUS rules in favor then let them also include all the other tenets to be opposed by the mythology of the bible. So If my divorced friend or the one with tattoos needs a cake, etc. Well sorry those deeply held religious beliefs will prevent it, by law! ( I think we are all aware of all the junk prohibited therein )
    Failure to refuse service based on religious belief must include ALL the belief.

  • TimJ

    Now its “participating in the preparations for a same-sex wedding”? So the gas station owner with “sincerely held religious beliefs” can refuse to gas up the car to go the wedding? Or tux rental business can refuse to rent a tux or the travel agent can refuse to book the honeymoon? Where does it end with these people?

    • Maggie 4NoH8

      It ends with a simple theocracy.

  • Richard B

    This is quite a stretch they are arguing. No one is asking the baker to participate in the wedding ceremony. They are asking the baker to bake a god dam cake. The Christians have a laundry list of things they hate, infidelity, divorce, abortions, marriages, Jews(killed Jeebus), and Muslims, but do they ever want to smite and disrespect them some queers.
    Even though nowhere in their bible does it instruct them to do so, nor does Jesus.
    These ignoramuses must be decisively stopped.