DOJ Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief Backing Anti-Gay Baker

Via press release from the ACLU:

The Justice Department filed a brief today with the Supreme Court arguing that businesses that are open to the public have a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT people.

The brief was filed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case in which a Colorado bakery refused to serve a same-sex couple seeking a cake for their wedding reception. Lower courts have previously found that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated Colorado’s non-discrimination law when it refused service to David Mullins and Charlie Craig.

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction:

“This Justice Department has already made its hostility to the rights of LGBT people and so many others crystal clear. But this brief was shocking, even for this administration. What the Trump Administration is advocating for is nothing short of a constitutional right to discriminate. We are confident that the Supreme Court will rule on the side of equal rights just as the lower courts have.”

  • FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

    • DisqusD37

      No other comments are necessary in this thread.

      • JulieRPatton

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!!!
        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
        !ql83d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash83FinderAll/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ql83t..,.

    • DiAnne Barrett

      Tell us how you really feel.

    • fuow

      I agree. And second it to every single gay man who didn’t vote.

    • JCF

      …I’m also sending that to every eligible U.S. voter, who did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. FU!

    • Buford

      I’ll state the obvious, again… if your lifestyle choice to be religious conflicts with your other lifestyle choice of how you want to earn your living, YOU need to reconcile those two conflicting choices. It’s not our obligation to accommodate your situation. Plan your life better. It’s your problem, not ours.

      • Lizard

        Looking at a lot of these bakers, I wonder if they thought the issue would never come up. Gay people getting married? In public?! The first state to legalize same-sex marriage was just back in 2003.

        I mean, it’s still their problem, not the couple’s.

        • Buford

          Maybe, but still… if their choice of faith and their livelihood are now conflicted (however they got there), it’s their problem to resolve. The suggestion that they are due some sort of legal waiver to prevent them from making hard life choices is repugnant in the extreme… and that’s without considering that this also impacts the rights of others.

          If there is a victim involved, it’s not a ‘religious liberty’.

        • wmforr

          Where, oh where, does the Buy Bull say it’s a sin to bake a cake for those sinners that Jesus chose to eat dinner with?

      • Kenneth Hamlett

        There is no conflict with your religious beliefs or freedom. That is merely an excuse that has been invented to conceal bigotry. If these individuals were concerned about sinfulness or dealing with those who are sinners, why have they never raised the concern in the past when they have dealt with all sorts of individuals openly committing all sorts of sins and never raised a concern. Even now, they do not argue that dealing with those committing sins poses the threat. They say those who are of this particular type – which we consider sinful – are the only ones who pose a threat to us. So, they willingly serve adulterers, incuding two individuals who commit adultery, break up two famlies, doing damage to children in each, and then decide to marry one another — not a problem for them. An atheist couple, who make known their contempt for religion, the belief in God, etc. to anyone who willlisten — they get a cake.. A prisoner in a local penitentiary, who is marrying a woman he met by mail after his incarceration so that he can receive a conjugal visit (there are women who make this one of the favors they offer among the ohers they have for sale) — their wedding gets a cake. Only gay and lesbian couples do not get cakes. That is a completely inconsistent application of a rule that they invented, so their own inconsistency discredits the claim. A solid majority of gays and lesbians in this country believe in Christianity, just as in the heterosexual community. So, the argument in this case is that selling a cake to Christians would violte our religious freedom as Christians. I know the bakers will argue that you cannot be gay and Christian, but I have been for almost all of my 67 years.

        It is not the baker’s choice, or yours, to tell anyone whether they can be Christian or not. It is God’s, and on judgment day, it will be decided by Jesus Christ. Since neither God nor Jesus Christ ever mentioned homosexuality or a problem with it, I am happy with the decision belonging to Jesus. Those who are Christian and condemn homosexuality and homosexuals do so based on a condemnation in Leviticus that I have had tossed at me for my entire life by those who did not bother to read Leviticus. In fact, that condemnation is one of 78 condemnations that served as the rules for an ancient Israelite settlement, and the rules applied there and nowhere else. Those who use the one against homosexuals are not trying to use the others — for things like wearing multiple fabrics at the same time, treating foreigners unkindly, eating shellfish, doing anything that could be considered work on the Sabbath, allowing their hair or beards to become unkempt, tearing clothing intentionally, etc They are not condemning new mothers, whom are also condemned for specific periods of time and until they make “a burnt animal sacrifice to the Lord.” No, as with the bakers nd their cakes, they only want to impose the condemnation that matches their prejudice, and they misrepresent the entire chapter in the process. So, I think those who have lied, misrepresented, accused us falsely of being child molesters, wanting to destroy marriage and trying to destroy the nation have much more to worry about than I.

        In your comment you imply once again that homosexuality is a choice. There is overwhelming evidence today that it is not a choice, and even many of our opponents acknowledge that, becaue they do not want to look foolish. Those saying it is a choice have never provided even a shred of evidence to back their claim. You also say that it is a lifestyle, and I take offense at the term. Like you, and evertyone else, we have lives. We work, pay taxes (at a higher rate because of discriminatory laws), love our families (except in the cases of families who disown us and sever contact with us, but that is not a destruction we initiate), serve our country in all the ways others do (and we always have — my late partner of almost 30 years was a decorted hero of WW II, fighting to preserve rights and freedoms that he was never given after returning home), being good citizens and good neighbors, and attending our churches. Many fundamentalist churches now have announced that we are not welcome even to attend a service in their churches and that we will be removed if we enter. They will not even allow us to atend weddings or other eveny — even if we are siblings or otherwise related to the couple. Yet, you and they say that we pose a threat to your exercise of your religion and see no threat to our exercise of the right by the actions in these churches. Do you really think Jesus Christ, who welcomed everyone, did busineess with everyone, assisted everyone (including sinners) would look favorably on the refusal to sell a cake to us. Do you think he would look favorably on those who say “do not enter our churches?” Anyone who knows anything about him could nott think that. He warned us against judging others. He also taught us that we must treat others as you would be treated. Are the bakers doing that? Are you?

  • bkmn

    And Trump is getting to appoint federal judges left and right so it will be harder to make progress in the future via the court system. EVERY election counts – spread that around.

    • FAEN

      Jeebus- it’s fucking ridiculous that we still have to spread that around.

      • AJD

        Because some progressives had totally serious issues with Clinton and just had to stay home or vote third party. Fucking morons. I’ll never forgive them.

      • Fuck Susan Sarandon and the rest of the “Hillary is worse than Trump” idiots.

        • Joe in PA

          And just recently I was called a “Clinton apologist”.

          Srsly. WTF is wrong with these people?

          • FAEN

            Beats the fuck out of me.

          • That_Looks_Delicious

            I have to wonder if they are really Democrats or really progressives. There is evidence that some of the same racial anxiety (and more than a little sexism) that propelled Trump in the GOP was also present to a certain extent on the “left” among some of the Bernie supporters. When you see numbers like this:

            https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/900164807961305088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fmonkey-cage%2Fwp%2F2017%2F08%2F24%2Fdid-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election%2F

            To be clear: I don’t blame Bernie for this. I believe the racism/sexism/homophobia that drove these people to vote for Trump was already present before Bernie even got in the race, whether or not they consciously acknowledge it, and that was part of the same motivation that drove them to back whoever was not Hillary.

          • Todd20036

            Bernie accused Hillary of cheating him out of the Nevada primary, and he didn’t back out even when it was obvious he couldn’t win.

            Bernie is somewhat at fault. Sorry, he does NOT get off Scott free.

          • kaydenpat

            True. I wish he had stepped back earlier and joined with Secretary Clinton against Trump. We’re not going to be able to bounce back easily after Trump gets through with us.

          • fuow

            W will if we actually get out and vote in every election.

          • danolgb

            Somewhat? He gave Trump talking points. He was the reason why the Russian hacking was so successful. He’s the reason why we’re split still today. Bernie is a lot more than somewhat at fault.
            And the Nevada thing was far worse. The people of Nevada voted for Hillary in their caucuses. Bernie’s campaign was literally trying to steal the state from her and the “rigging” in Nevada was simply the State party enforcing the rules and protecting the voters’ voices. The Nevada convention was really the turning point when Bernie really started going nasty and the alleged terrible emails from the DNC were all in response to Bernie attacking the party. Nothing more.

          • picalane

            I and many people I know up here in Wa. st. supported Bernie up to the primary. At that point, myself and every Bernie supporter I know gave our full support to Hillary. I’m not sure what a Bernie Bro looks or sounds like but have you ever considered what the Russian trolls were doing? If ‘Bernie Bros’ is a troll creation, it is working to weaken the Democrats. Worth a thought.

          • These Bernie Bros may hate this but they aren’t leftists and they are complicit in white supremacy. But just like Trump supporters many of them are impervious to facts. They’re moderates at best but they seem to believe they’re Che Guevara or some shit.

          • wmforr

            I think a lot of these people must have been just DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHEMENT know-nothings who would have voted for Al Capone if he’d been on the ballot.

          • fuow

            Tell me about it. I notice our “we shall soon rule the earth and piss on your bones” millennials who blame Hilary have quieted down around here.

          • danolgb

            Oh.. you need to go back to the post about the book excerpts. “Leastyebejudged” was telling people to commit suicide. They’re still around.

        • FAEN

          And when you asked them how she was worse it was either some fakakta story or it was “BENGHAZI.”

    • juanjo54

      But her emails!

    • Scribble Writer 🌹 ☭

      electoral tactics won’t get us anywhere, they never do, better idea: let’s work to dismantle the fucking court system ☭

      • Phillip in L.A.

        Dismantle the court system? That gave us the right to get married only Two (2) years ago? Yeah, that makes sense.

        • danolgb

          Scribble is a Berner.. they don’t live in reality,

    • David Walker

      Including THIS NOVEMBER. Locals are crucial, unless you want to see the arts programs depleted even more, school meals that are lunch only and only when school is in session, creationism taught as or in place of science, and teachers’ unions decimated. Also, the people who are in charge of making the rules for your town, burg, or city. You may be in a district or state that has a question up for a vote. November is local and is NOT to be ignored…because you know goddamned well THEY won’t ignore it.

    • gary47290

      POTUS is appointing judges right and rightet. Nothing left here.

    • wmforr

      Fortunately he is extremely tardy in nominating hundreds of positions, probably to drown the government in a bathtub–hope it’ll all wait until we have a true American in the White House.

    • William

      Nobody is talking about the hacked voter rolls or machines without paper backup. People need to demand a return to paper ballots.

  • WarrenHart

    Thanks Bernie.

    • safari

      And Russia

      • danolgb

        Bernie could have spoken out against all the Russian misinformation. Still can. But…

    • A Black

      Thanks Hillary for being so unelectable you lost to a man with a sub 40% approval rating on the day of the general election. I guess name recognition can only carry you so far.

      • Tread

        You knew what the stakes were and still bashed her. Go fuck yourself.

      • WarrenHart

        Hillary won the majority vote by 3 million. Trump won just enough to give him the electoral college thanks to Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and the silly people that fell for their self righteous pie in the sky bullshit. That’s what happened. It was always going to be either a Democrat, which Bernie isn’t and never was or would be, and a Republican. Hey, how’s that free college working out for ya? What about that $15.00 minimum wage? Or that medicare for all?

      • That_Looks_Delicious

        Fuck you, asshole. She got the second-highest number of votes of all time. Only Obama in ’08 got more than her. She was possibly the best-prepared, most qualified candidate ever. I could go on and on, but whatever your mental problem is that you feel you have to blame Hillary for, go see a doctor about it.

    • Tread

      No, thanks, America, for being 1/3rd racist, ignorant, cruel, angry morons.

    • April

      It’s not Sanders fault. It was HRC’s election to lose. She became complacent.

      P.S. I voted for her.

      • WarrenHart

        Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat right? Right. Bernie Sanders attempted a hostile take over of the Democratic Party to run for president right? Right In order to accomplish this pipe dream Bernie’s had sense he was in his 20’s Bernie Sanders came up with this scheme to bullshit a bunch of young and naive college kids that he was going to give them free tuition, free healthcare and guaranteed higher wages and the kids feel for it, right? Right. Then Bernie Sanders used the phony momentum he generated with the phony pie in the sky crap he was never going to be able to get anybody even if he had won everything to get those naive kids to send in lots of money, right? Right. The Bernie Sanders relentlessly attacked the only candidate that could have won against a Republican with phony made up smears and false accusations and he stayed in the race well beyond any hope he could ever win just because his ego wouldn’t let him let it go, right which gave Trump all the ammunition he needed to win the electoral college by a slim margin, right? And on and on….Yeah, it was Bernie Sanders fault.

  • safari

    Hey hey, ho ho, the tree elf ‘s gotta go

  • RoverSerton

    Damn, let the games begin. List of companies FORCED to service LGBTQ… Ambulances, Hospitals, Landlords, EMT’s, Police, fire. unless they disagree. What a quagmire they are opening.

    • Ninja0980

      Not to mention other groups.

    • Pip

      It’s this slippery slope exactly. First it’s bakeries, next it’s hospitals. Might sound a bit hyperbolic, but a quick view of history would tell you otherwise.

      • FAEN

        Ironic that the right wing grifters have accused our side of the slippery slope for years-“if gays can get married you’ll be able to marry your son next”🙄.

        Except being allowed to discriminate against a group of people IS a slippery slope.

        • David Walker

          Not in the short term, and that’s what they count on. Plus, fags have icky buttsecks which Beauregard would never, ever indulge in. My hate is becoming all-consuming. Gotta go.

          • Pip

            I have to say, I’ve never stayed this angry for so long in my life. These people just seem to bring it out so easily.

          • David Walker

            My shrink has remarked on that several times. So many people are angry and expressing hate. He’s as old as I and he’s never seen this happen before for such a prolonged period and he doesn’t really know how to help people cope. I’ve told him it’s not going away anytime soon.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            One-word answer: Diazepam

          • fuow

            You Cope by getting active in the Democratic party at the local level. You Cope by voting.

          • Pip

            A friend of mine said that anxiety disorders are on the uptick too.

          • NowVoyager

            He probably had “icky buttsecks” too…or at least his wife did since she’s married to such a complete asshole. By the way, more heterosexuals (who vastly outnumber us) have “buttsecks” in greater numbers than we do. [see below]

            “The report, titled “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States,” which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex…”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/anal-sex-heterosexual-couples-report_n_1190440.html

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2687df309fc841de82e82ced81989dbff197058dce319105989f7c516626af10.jpg

          • David Walker

            Thanks. And the portrait is both hysterical and terrifying.

        • prixator

          As always, the right wing are masters of projection.

          • FAEN

            That they are.

          • prixator

            In a way, it’s a good thing. It provides a clue as to what they are probably up to. Then, it’s only a matter of time before it’s discovered and brought to light.

    • David Walker

      And making the rape victim the heavy. I still can’t bring myself to believe that there’s is ANY reason to make things easier for the rapist, except, of course, 45’s rapes and the determination to take away everything Obama did FOR the people of this country.

      • Pip

        And the fact that his followers actually support it all is the most baffling part.

        • David Walker

          It denigrates women some more and makes it possible for either the father or the son to weasel out of the charge much more easily.

          • Cipher

            The pussy grabber wants this protection rolled.back? Shocked… Shocked…

  • vorpal 😼

    Once again Trump proves that he’s the bestest friend of and advocate for all LGBT Americans.

    The fact that our only hope in this administration is Ivanka is the epitome of SAD!!!

    • safari
      • vorpal 😼

        Also the use of the singular LGBT, clearly indicating Caitlyn Jenner and nobody else.

        (I think an S may have been scrawled in hastily afterwards in the upper right corner, probably because the Log Cabin Republicants were feeling left out of the self-flagellation.)

        • David Walker

          I thought maybe it was a grocer’s apostrophe…except there’s no S in LGBT.

      • JWC

        Upside down is either distress or disrespect Either works

  • William

    That’s not part of your job description Jeffy.

  • ErikDC

    I’d rather Ivanka as attorney general. She’d be better for LGBT people and you know Trump would jump at the chance to make his daughter AG.

    Can someone start #Ivanka4AG on twitter and get Trump to fire Sessions?

    • Karl Dubhe

      NO she would not.

      Stop shoveling bullshit about the Tsarina being a human being. She’s as evil as her father, if not more so.

      • Beagle

        “Better than Sessions” is a low enough bar that Ivanka might be able to clear it. Any of our cats could clear that bar, including the ones that passed away in 2009.

        But it’s a long way from “better than Sessions” to “halfway tolerable.”

  • Rocco Gibraltar

    It is an ANIMUS brief.

    • AmeriCanadian

      Aptly named. Such utter bullshit.

  • Nick in Pasadena

    I don’t believe in a Biblical hell, but if I’m wrong and it exists, I hope Sessions is placed in the hottest part. What a worthless weasel.

    • Karl Dubhe

      I prefer a Greek version of the after life, but modified so that a person could do unto those who’d done unto them.

      Or, whatever…

  • Bluto
    • Tread

      They literally scribbled on that fucking flag with black magic marker 3 minutes before he walked out. I’m sure he couldn’t get it out of his fucking hands fast enough. Also, I hope those cünts in North Carolina fucking rot from the inside out.

      • Ken M

        And it’s upside down. Rainbow = Red on top…asshole

      • Pip

        Points for the umlaut use. It’s the only way that word is allowed to be said in our house. LoL

  • danolgb

    You know whose DoJ would be filing an Amicus Brief on our side? Hillary’s.

    How’s that working out for you Susan Sarandon and company?

    • FAEN

      Still waiting for that ‘revolution ‘.

      • pch1013

        They have a new mission now: to ensure that whoever emerges as the front-runner is punished the same way that Hillary was.

    • JCF

      The new season of “American Horror Story”? Sarah Paulson’s character? Yeah.

      • joeyj1220

        AHS always gets a lot of grief for it’s crazy, disjointed story lines, but I sure was feeling Paulson’s pain in this week’s episode. She’s so amazing!! PS: AHS is also the queerest show on television

  • safari

    I do go back and forth on the issue of when it is okay to refuse service at all. I’ve settled on original works — like a custom design. Thoughts?

    • Ninja0980

      Custom designs are fine with me.
      But if it’s a product you’re willing to make for anyone else, nope.

    • RoverSerton

      you really want to go that route?

      • safari

        I’m not sure. It is why I ask.

    • vorpal 😼

      That depends: if they would willingly make the same custom design for a heterosexual couple, it’s clearly discrimination.

    • Michael C

      If the discrimination is based on the actual design and not the customer, I could see your point.

      There was a bakery in Ireland that refused to decorate a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” on it. In that case, it was the custom design that was refused, not necessarily the customer.

      I’m cool with that.

      In the case of wedding cakes, these bakers are obviously refusing service on the basis of the customer, not the requested product.

    • marshlc

      My feeling is it’s OK for a business to say that they don’t sell wedding cakes. But if they sell wedding cakes, they have to sell them to anyone who is willing to pay for them.

      So I’d feel it was OK for a place that did custom designs to say “We won’t design hate slogans” as long as they are as unwilling to say “God hates fags” as they are to say “Fuck Christians”.

      I’m on staff at a website that publishes user submitted content. We’re meant to be a very uncontroversial, family friendly place. So even though most of the staff would really be fine with allowing Trump-bashing content, we don’t, because we want to be able to refuse Clinton bashing, or gay bashing, or Muslim bashing, etc.

  • Ninja0980

    But remember, gays are being thrown off rooftops in the Middle East so don’t you dare complain about how the U.S Government wants to make it so you can be legally discriminated against in all 50 states.

    • FAEN

      To paraphrase Meryl in ‘Postcards From The Edge’-“These are the options? Being legally discriminated against or thrown off a roof?”

    • Pip

      Ah, the old “We may be a bag of dicks, but there are much worse things elsewhere” argument.

  • Schlukitz

    Department of Justice, my ass! What a misnomer.

    How about the Department of Injustice?

    • vorpal 😼

      Unjustice?
      Alternative Justice?

    • jerry

      And the first thing the racist Keebler elf did was completely gut the Civil Rights Division.

      • David Walker

        Which also makes it considerably easier for the Title IX protections to be written off. My god, I hate these people.

    • FAEN

      You misspelled SS.

    • gary47290

      Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

  • boobert

    This action will bite them in the ass ! Discrimination works both ways. Wait till a muslim business refuses services .

  • Tiger Quinn

    Between this and Betsey’s Title IX stuff today, something must be about to break for them to need this kind of distraction.

    • djcoastermark

      As if the pending carp from Irma wasn’t enough, it must be huge.

      • David Walker

        Considering the shit 45 got away with when Harvey hit, I’m surprised these vermin haven’t waited until Irma’s arrival.

    • danolgb

      Or they’re just genuinely terrible people.

    • vorpal 😼

      They’re getting us warmed up for the regularly scheduled Friday fucktastic freaky farcical fiesta.

  • AtticusP

    The wheels on this fucking bus can’t fall off soon enough to suit me.

    Please hurry, Mr. Mueller. America is counting on you.

  • djcoastermark

    The most Bigoted Hateful Disgusting government in America in our lifetimes, if not ever. Words cannot describe how I feel now at MY supposed country. So I will use this, just to be polite –
    ##@!&**((??!))##*****[email protected]@!!

    • i think i got it covered, down at the bottom.

      • djcoastermark

        Yes. That is loud and clear. Eloquent even, in this case.

  • David Walker

    I so want to have Keith’s baby.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo0koTYc4zg

  • FAEN

    Taxes should be used for our protection not our persecution!

    Fuck you KKKeebler Elf.

  • Reality.Bites
  • boobert

    I have a neighbor running for township committee. He’s always been very nice to us, and stopped by to ask for our support. He’s running as a republican. I told him it’s against my self interest to vote for ANYONE in that party, and that although he’s gay friendly, he’s guilty by association .

    • safari

      Good for you. Did he defend his party, btw?

      • boobert

        He tried to explain that he would be in complete support of us. I told him until they can take the party leadership back from extremist his word was useless.

        • Reality.Bites

          The fact that he can run as a Republican now makes his word worthless forever.

        • marshlc

          This is what decent people need to hear – that their association with the Republican Party, that years ago just meant that they were somewhat conservative, now means that other decent people don’t want to associate with them. Lie down with dogs…..

          • FAEN

            Let’s not insult dogs.

          • fuow

            Yes. However, they VOTE. We don’t.

        • FAEN

          More importantly if he’s gay friendly why the fuck is he a republican?

        • No More GOP.

          *Pow* Right in the kisser. And good for you!

      • FAEN

        Indefensible-it’s the Nazi party.

    • canoebum

      You’re a lot more tolerant than I am. I don’t even talk to people I know to be Republicans. I write to my (R) representative, but that’s only to let her know how dissatisfied I am with her being a party hack. Trump voters I won’t allow in my house.

      • FAEN

        I talk to them only so I can put them on the spot and rub their noses in this disaster of a ‘POTUS’.

    • Pip

      I have a friend, and her husband is a registered Republican. He’s one of the most liberal people I’ve ever met. His defense for being a registered Republican is that it lets him vote in the primaries to “keep the crazies out”. Last time we were having dinner with them and we were giving him a hard time about being a registered Republican he dropped that line. I asked “Soooo, how’d that work out for you this time? You seemed to have failed.” He had no answer.

      • Buford

        Sorry, but since the documented GOP 2016 platform expressed support for RFRA laws which would allow anyone to play the faith card to sidestep the constitution, doing anything to support the GOP is an act of bigotry.

        • Pip

          That’s what we’ve tried telling him. She’s on his case to change that asap.

          • Buford

            It’s pretty simple – the bigotry should have been a deal-breaker… a disqualifier. It’s not possible for them to assert that they voted Trump/GOP for the solely their economic stance while refusing to accept responsibility for the bigotry.

            It’s the same with my family. Things have changed. They voted to empower people who want Muslims banned and/or interned… who think Christians should have the legal right to discriminate against those they dislike… who don’t think LGBT Americans deserve equal protection under our laws… and who think women should face punishment for having perfectly-legal medical procedures. I obviously cannot respect people who support those stances, but neither can I respect those who ignore those stances just so they can get the tax plan they want.

          • Pip

            Luckily he didn’t actually vote for Trump when it came time for the elections. He voted Hillary. We’re just all baffled that he’s still registered as a Republican given what the party actually stands for.

  • coram nobis

    Here is the SCOTUSblog page on the case, and it’s ongoing as new filings and amicus briefs come in.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

    Oct. 23 is the next deadline on filings.

  • Daveed_WOW

    I won’t be in the same room with a Republican.

    • Tomcat

      I will, a funeral home.

      • safari

        I don’t like funeral homes. It’s creepy there is the corpse room and the coffee room next door. Plus milling around talking to people with a dead body just lying there is unsettling. And don’t get me started on “oh, it looks like they are just resting”

        • Tomcat

          Wait until your friends start dying off, you will get use to it, or join them.

        • djcoastermark

          With my family, it’s not a coffee room, it’s a bar. A very well stocked bar. Oh the stories.

        • Todd20036

          It gets worse if coffee comes out of one of your loved one’s orifices.

      • Hue-Man
        • safari

          Cremains vaults or postal boxes?

          • safari

            (I also don’t like mausoleums because it is like a library for the dead.)

          • another_steve

            Both.

            Visit grandma and pick up your mail at the same time.

          • djcoastermark

            Cool, you can send your thoughts and prayers all at one time ! Love it.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            My aunt is stored in one of those. It was a giant veterans’ (I guess you can’t call it “burial ground”) in Delaware. I had never seen such a thing before that day.

          • Todd20036

            They better be postal boxes. Otherwise my bills will never get mailed.

      • Daveed_WOW

        Well, at least some of them will be dead.

    • I wish I could afford to have such a policy but I live in Texas and I need to keep working.

      • Tomcat

        Sounds like Tennessee.

    • Todd20036

      I have to work with some of them. Not many, but a few.

      But on my own time, I stay away from republicans.

      Though I imagine a few people in my video game guild are republicans.

  • Tomcat

    OK so Sessions SCROTUM fell out of his briefs.

  • I’m concerned that SCOTUS will do damage to public accommodations laws overall, not just the ability for bigots to refuse the bake wedding cakes. (Not that I think that’s okay.)

    • Ninja0980

      If this is held in the bigots, favor, it will and they know it.

      • Tomcat

        Well I guess elections DO have consequences.

      • danolgb

        Yup.. it will. It will be Hobby Lobby x 10 and will bring back Jim Crow.

    • Reality.Bites

      Carving out a religious exemption purely on the basis of objections to sexual orientation, or one that’s ok with everything but marriage is hard to justify legally.

      And a religious exemption on everything would gut all human rights laws.

      • UrsusArctos

        That’s a FEATURE not a bug to these alleged people.

        • Reality.Bites

          I understand that, of course. But there’s going to be hell to pay the first time someone uses it to openly discriminate on race or against Jews.

          “I never thought the Nazis would do it AGAIN.”

          • UrsusArctos

            Wait until a MOOSE-LAMB refuses to serve an Evangelical woman because SHE’S dressed “like a whore”. Inter-religious warfare/hatred has a long and bitter history. These idiot Xians think the license to discriminate will apply to them only.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        “Carving out a religious exemption purely on the basis of objections to
        sexual orientation, or one that’s ok with everything but marriage is
        hard to justify legally.”

        Yes, you are correct! Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court did exactly that (carved out an exemption only for marriage, without a single citation to authority), even AFTER finding that discrimination based on sexual orientation must be subject to strict scrutiny.

  • another_steve

    Caitlyn Jenner… GET OUT YA “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” CAP, GURL!!!

    • Todd20036

      The ultimate quisling. I’m so disappointed in her.

      • another_steve

        Agree 100 percent, Todd.

        I have prior issues with girl.

        I believe that by sensationalizing her transition – the “sexpot” magazine cover and the like – she set back the trans civil rights movement 10 years.

        The unwashed masses – the 90 percent of Americans who know zip about trans people and their issues – look at her and say to themselves, “Okay, that’s what this is all about. They want to be Hollywood sexpots. Big hair. Big makeup. Big boobs.”

        • Todd20036

          There are very few transpeople who are celebrities. Caitlyn could have done much for the trans community, and instead she voted for Twitler.

          And now that Twitler is blatantly anti trans, Caitlyn does nothing. Less than nothing. She wore her fucking Trump cap AFTER Trump tried getting trans people out of the military.

          Let a few Trumpanzees set upon her. Maybe then she’ll learn something about her “friends”

          • another_steve

            I defer to transpeople reading here re their assessment of the effect – positive or negative – of these high profile “celebrity” transitions. The tweets and the magazine covers and the Annie Leibovitz “glamour” photo shoots.

            Chelsea Manning – another case in point.

            Is her recent “capitalizing upon” her transition a good thing for the cause of advancing trans equality?

          • Todd20036

            Not sure about Manning, but at least she didn’t come out being pro-Trump

          • FAEN

            Right now she’s useful to them. The moment she isn’t they will turn on her. How the hell does she not see it is beyond me.

  • Cucker “Dick” Tarlson

    We’re next, guys.

    • Tread

      We haven’t been off the docket, so…

  • SoCalGal20
    • safari

      But Jr. says he has no memory of what Sr. did.

      • djcoastermark

        Good grief, Alzheimer’s starts early in that family.

    • Paul

      This is becoming the longest vinegar stroke in history.

  • JWC

    Let’s see what the Supreme Court says

  • Sam_Handwich

    i can’t recall –

    is this case on appeal from federal court, or CO supreme court?

  • Bryan

    Not what I was hoping to refresh the homepage to after starting to read the earlier post about the House/Senate doing the same thing – refreshed….oh, goody….gollum escaped Tartarus again. And he’s got the latest writ from the dark lord. Fantastic.

  • Tomcat

    NO cake for you,,, no cake for you, no cake for you. You get cake because
    I LIKE YOU.

    • Tor

      There was a bartender in the Haight in the 80’s who acted exactly that way. The Ali Zam Zam Room, if I remember correctly. He’d throw you out if you ordered the wrong drink. He would not admit you if you looked like someone he would not admit. I was smart enough to know to order a martini just the way he liked them.

  • Treant

    Torches and pitchforks time yet? No? Still watching Dancing With The Stars? Have at, then, America. Have at.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      Well put.

  • Ken M

    The only federal right that the LGBT community has is marriage. We are not protected at the Federal level for anything!!!. That means housing, jobs, NOTHING. To win this case they will need to battle the importance of state law against the legality of federal discrimination. Hate to so say guys, but the federal Govt doesn’t protect us. It will be anti discrimination laws of Colorado, vs 1st amendment definition of discrimination regarding LGBT.

    • FredDorner

      SCOTUS has never reversed a public accommodations law. If anything states have far more authority regarding the regulation of business than Congress did when it passed the Civil Rights Act.

      • fuow

        Well, get ready for the first time. Were going to lose this and that, badly.

        • FredDorner

          SCOTUS has the same ideological balance today as it did when Scalia still roamed the earth. The only difference is that 2 years ago there weren’t 4 votes to hear the Elane Photography case which had an even stronger artistic expression argument than the bigoted baker has.

          And if SCOTUS were to accept the DOJ’s and ADF’s absurd arguments it would permit this bigoted baker to deny service to mixed-race couples or Jewish couples based merely on the fact that he’s a traditional Southern Baptist.

          • fuow

            Actually, that balance has shifted – Roberts now knows how strongly the odds are in ‘his’ side’s favour of getting at least one and quite possibly two more gay-bashing haters.
            Sadly, the five conservatives on the court would have no trouble whatsoever limiting this to just us ‘icky’ gays.
            I think you’re expecting us to be treated the same way as any other religious freedom dispute would be treated. That’s not how this works. When it comes to christians and gays, the rule in this court is: Toss a coin.
            Heads: christians win.
            Tails: Gays lose.

  • Tomcat

    I see a calling for a string of gay bakeries people, put them out of business.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    That’s the last straw. I’m never buying Keebler cookies again.

    • Tomcat

      Aw come on, the other elves are cute.

    • Reality.Bites

      And I’m boycotting everything with Leslie Jordan and Henry Gibson.

      You can never be too safe.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    Saw this comment somewhere :
    Jeff Sessions would have argued that a lunch-counter clerk shouldn’t have to make a sandwich for a Negro. But SCOTUS found otherwise.

    • Tomcat

      I am sure Sessions argued that very thing on many occasions in his home state for years to his racist friends.

      • djcoastermark

        No, he never argued that. He stated it as fact there. There was major consensus with said legislature buddies..

        • Tomcat

          That is true, he most likely never found a dissenting argument.

    • M Jackson

      In a New York commie jew fag minute!

    • Vista-Cruiser

      Unfortunately, we have a totally different Supreme Court now.

  • Cuberly

    OT: Odious RCC trollz infighting is super fun.

    https://twitter.com/LPDah/status/905926379018928128

    • Reality.Bites

      We need them so we can rape their children, you fool, Dolan mentioned while stroking a cat.

      • djcoastermark

        Kitty, it’s not a full grown pussy yet.

        • m_lp_ql_m

          Was he grabbing it? Yes? It’s a pussy.

    • EdmondWherever

      I don’t know why I read that as “Cardinal Dolan bursts into tears”. Wishful thinking, I guess.

      • Cuberly

        Heh, maybe he’s reserving that honor for Bill Donohue…..oooooooboy…..his fax machine is going to work overtime bashing Bannon, which should prove interesting because Breitbart won’t let that slip by. Heh…..the comedy is just starting.

  • Ninja0980

    https://twitter.com/JesusRodxxx/status/905916515568017409
    Uh no asshole, the free market isn’t always going to right wrongs and even if it did, I shouldn’t have to try and guess which places will provide service to my husband and I and other LGBT customers.

    • Ken M

      The discrimination is at the state level. CO has anti discrimination laws which include sexual orientation. 31 other states, and the Federal Govt. don’t. Who is right? That’s why the case is in the hands of SCOTUS.

      • Tomcat

        So when we go to a federal park to buy that cake they can decide
        to discriminate. Otherwise let the states make the
        anti-discrimination laws.

        • Ken M

          If you can find a bakery in an area that is not deemed to be covered by the states laws, yes, they can say no. Many states only have protection in certain areas w/o it being state wide. I’m not sure of the steps to get a business license on federal property.

  • Tomcat

    Don’t need business regulations,,, businesses will do the right thing.
    Or was that the REICH thing?

  • Natty Enquirer

    I wonder if Kennedy will come down on the side of the religious exemption in an attempt to balance Obergefell.

    • Ninja0980

      If he does, he has to know he is setting the stage for it be gutted or curtailed.

      • Natty Enquirer

        It doesn’t seem likely given his positive track record on gay rights.

  • Jonathan Smith

    just when you think they can NOT sink any lower, dRump fails to surprise.

  • Christ. What an asshole.

  • Sam_Handwich

    i don’t see how SCOTUS could decide for the bakery without basically nullifying every public accommodation/anti-discrimination law in the country.

    • Tomcat

      That’s REICH, but they will.

    • Treant

      A tightly worded “those without Federal protection” ruling would probably be the way they do it.

      • Ninja0980

        But even the Federal laws would soon be under attack.

        • Treant

          That would be the next logical step, then working on repealing some amendments as “no longer necessary.”

    • fuow

      They’d like nothing better. The Asswipes who didn’t vote or voted Green did this to us. Never forget that.

    • Cipher

      Under federal law, LGBTQ: not a protected class. Some courts finally jumped on the sex/gender identify argument, but it was long argued and rejected. Race, religion, sex… all protected classes under federal law where strict scrutiny is applied.

      Yes, fuck everyone who complained about emails, Wall Street $, insurance company $, anything that was an excuse to avoid doing the right thing by participating in the “system” – the one we actually fucking have, two parties and all.

  • Jonathan Smith

    ” We are confident that the Supreme Court will rule on the side of equal rights just as the lower courts have.””
    i wish WE were.
    ah well, back to being a second class citizen…….. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bfefce4cfdbb8159d95a563c607079f8e8abe168a6cbe0042b5a4bbd8752b8a0.png

    • Ken M

      Without Federal protections for LGBT, which currently don’t exist, we’re looking at religious rights vs “special” rights…again.

      • djcoastermark

        Which of course means again , religious rights are special rights.

        • Ken M

          uh yup, something like that…again

  • JWC

    Elmer Keibler Jeffry Noregaurd is a nasty little piece of work

  • TheManicMechanic

    Die in a fire, conservascum.

    • Hue-Man

      While firefighters and paramedics refuse to help him because of their deeply held religious beliefs (that there are no deities.)

  • pch1013

    OT, but Trump’s ethics (ha!) attorney’s wife just got busted for fucking a prison inmate in her car. http://www.fauquier.com/news/court-records-wife-of-trump-org-ethics-attorney-arrested-after/article_04083c9a-930a-11e7-8f7f-43944bf28329.html

    • EdmondWherever

      “Eh-thicks?”

      • Jonathan Smith

        it’s what other people have that you do not.
        “ethics”

      • MBear

        Overweight canadians

        • EdmondWherever

          High pressure hosers?

          • MBear

            Only if you’re hawt 😉

    • Tomcat

      Trump and ethics in same sentence sounds funny.

      • Jonathan Smith

        not really, just add “lack of” somewhere in that scentence

    • clay

      what the cuck?

      • pj

        shes 53. inmate is 23. her husband is trump org. ethics supervisor. translation…..clusterfuck.

        • Lumpy Gaga

          clustercuck – when your wife is the center of a prison gang bang.

          • Todd20036

            I’m not seeing the downside.

        • clay

          Pittsburgh, PA’s GOP US House member was deposed in a divorce case this summer (they’re both psychologists). He’s 64, she’s 37. I don’t see his daughters age, but . . .

        • Natty Enquirer

          Or flustercuck.

      • Todd20036

        I see what you did there….

      • UrsusArctos
    • Tor

      “…The inmate was on trustee status at the time, meaning he was jailed on “minimal charges” and “authorized to perform work inside and outside of the detention center and sheriff’s office facilities,” And in the back seats of certain automobiles.

  • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

    Because it’s so much more important to protect us from having to bake for those damn queers, than it is to protect you from having your information stolen.

    • Tor

      Must have priorities.

  • Girlgoon

    Look what daddy made happen Evanka honey, now the evangelicals are guaranteeing daddy will get his own private golden golf cart in heaven.

    • BearEyes

      may he enjoy the golf cart very soon

  • Ninja0980

    There are bigots here in NY that are chomping at the bits to go after the laws protecting us here.
    If this is upheld, I fear they will get their wish.

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    A reminder, just in case anybody had forgotten since Tuesday that Keebler elf is totally evil.

  • BearEyes

    Jefferson KKK Sessions sure does love him some jim-crow and pink-crow laws.
    If he gets away with this pink-crow crap, expect him to try and bring back jim-crow.

  • lizdhm

    If SCOTUS sides with the bakery, racists, amtisemites, and everyone else can claim a religious right to discriminate.

    • Tomcat

      That is the plan.

      • Ninja0980

        I hope Clarence Thomas and his wife get the full brunt of the bigotry that is still alive and well against interracial couples.

        • Jonathan Smith

          of course not.
          he knows his place.
          “Yes, Sir, what can i do for You Sir?”

  • Jonathan Smith

    “We hold these truth’s to be self evident, that all”
    White, straight, Christian men are created equal. Everyone else can fuck off.

  • Jonathan Smith

    wait on impeaching dRump (I know, right?) how the fuck do you remove a AG?

    • Tor

      New president? Oh wait, the next one will be an asshole, too.

  • clay

    In other DoJ news:
    Appeals court rules against Trump administration on travel ban restrictions on refugees and close relatives
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-travel-ban-trump-2017-story.html

  • Halou

    Can gay bakers discriminate against Christian customers for the same reason?

    “We wouldn’t want to defile your perfect pious wedding with our gay cakes, so we’re not going to take your order. But feel free to tip us for our quality service otherwise.”

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Gay is not a protected class, like religion, so no.

      • Michael C

        Sexual orientation is a protected class, like religion, in Colorado.

        • Friday

          Which is what the Christians are really targeting with their cake dramas.

          • Tor

            Bingo!!

      • Michael

        You could always technically deny them services due to them being assholes.

  • MBear

    And there you have it: after almost 250 years the american government is still focused on denying people their rights. Freedom? More like propaganda

    • Tomcat

      Thank heaven racism has been conquered, along with bigotry./s

      • Ninja0980

        A soaring economy will fix those issues, just ask the Bernie bots.

        • Cipher

          No it won’t, free college will! And healthcare for all, because… I really just feel that I can’t do the right fucking thing and accept that a good candidate is not the enemy of the perfect one. And I don’t care about foreign policy. Or gun control. Or the judiciary. All rich people are evil.

  • Jefe5084

    OT. Vicente Fox. Getting even more scathing about the Orange Menace.

    https://youtu.be/-ukv9v7IGZw

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      He had my vote even before he put the goat in the ad.

    • Silver Badger

      Yes! Vote Goat!

  • Tomcat

    OT: Here is an interesting hurricane collection for anyone interested in hurricane history.
    http://postpopular.com/the-deadliest-hurricanes-in-u-s-history/

  • Henry Auvil

    So appropriate that the Keebler elf would stand up against baking for the gays.

    • Tor

      Oh the irony! and the coppery! and the bronzey!

  • Tomcat

    I make it a point to never eat anything made by people that hate me. Just me, but that’s the way I feel.

    • David Walker

      True. God knows what they put in the salad dressing. Or the whipped cream.

  • Rocco

    So he blatantly lied during his confirmation hearings? Quelle surprise!

    • Friday

      He already publicly perjured himself in those hearings, why not.

  • margaretpoa

    I wish I could be as confident as the ACLU.

  • Todd

    That ACLU lady is more confident than the rest of us. What has the LCR said ?
    Sad days just keep getting sadder.

  • Marc

    I watched an interviewed with the baker in which he said he has knowingly served gays in the past. Shouldn’t his religious sensibilities have been outraged by that alone? The Bible is pretty clear on what it thinks of gays period. He is selectively choosing what moral outrages to use the Bible to condone.

  • Phillip in L.A.

    Please read carefully.

    It is difficult to determine whether the brief apparently linked to by the ACLU is in fact a true document. The copy at the link is not signed, and the date is given merely as “September 2017”–not a date certain; I find it difficult to believe the Solicitor General of the United States does such sloppy paperwork (even under the present “Administration.”)

    Further, there is NOT YET an entry in the Court’s official docket (5:00 pm PDT) reflecting the filing of this alleged document.(*) It might be a draft; it might be a joke; it might be real; but it seems too soon to tell for sure.

    (*) In fact, the docket does not even reflect a request by the Solicitor General to file an amicus brief in the case–an item I find extremely suspicious (although both sides have stipulated to the filing of such briefs.)

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Finally, if you go in and actually read the alleged “Brief,” you will find it is poorly-written, fails to address some of the most basic issues in a meaningful way, and worst of all: it is *not* persuasive! There is a logical argument the Government COULD have proffered, but they failed to do so, at least in whatever this document happens to be….

  • Blake Paine

    ADF had 4 points they said the wanted to make. here are my rebuttals:

    1. Jack should have the freedom to say “no” to some custom artistic projects while saying “yes” to all people.

    Absolute he should but this isn’t about Jack, its about the business Masterpiece Cakeshop. It is the business that has the obligation to serve the public without civil rights discrimination, Jack is mentioned in the action only as the business owner. The business can reject custom artistic projects because of the nature of the project itself, it can’t reject customers wanting to purchase them because of a civil rights class.

    2. Designing custom cakes is artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.

    Again, it is the business with the obligation not any particular person. If Jack doesn’t want to decorate the cake this business that had been in operation for 19 years with 2 locations and did 200+ wedding cakes annually had someone else that could do the decorating. Jack could have take a few days of well deserved rest if he liked, but that doesn’t absolve the business of its obligation to serve the public without civil rights discrimination.

    3. The government should not have the authority to compel or to suppress art.

    No compelling, the business freely advertised to the public to come and get a cake for ‘your wedding’. If the business wasn’t able to do so while obeying the law and respecting customer civil rights why would it make the offer in the first place? The customers in this instance were rejected for what they were going to use their purchase for, not any quality of the wedding cake itself. Don’t make offers to the public if you know you aren’t going to treat them legally and respect their civil rights is the lesson here.

    4. The government cannot declare that certain beliefs are unacceptable and push them out of the public square.

    Of course not, everyone retains their first amendment rights but as the courts said in Piggie Park Enterprises regarding a business owner with sincerely held beliefs:

    ”Undoubtedly defendant Besieger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.”

    As is consistent with the federal and Colorado constitutions and the reasoning behind civil rights laws.

    This is about the obligations of a bakery and its owner, not a baker. The customers were rejected before the nature of their custom wedding cake was even discussed, and Jack doesn’t have to be the ‘baker’ if he doesn’t want to be, but that doesn’t absolve the business of its obligations to respect civil rights.

    I hope the state attorneys drive these points home at the earliest opportunity and point out the case before the SCOTUS wasn’t even the issue that the Colorado Commission ruled on.

    • Todd20036

      Also, the idea that baking is art opens a huge can of worms.

      Is janitorial work art? Is cooking a meal art? Is medical care art?

      There are no boundaries if you start calling baking a fucking cake “art”.

      • leastyebejudged

        There’s also no legal precedent for “art” to be exempt, so this is all just PR. Effective PR.

      • FAEN

        Art form or not-debatable-the bakery is a business and you can’t refuse to sell to a group of people based on animus.

      • Tor

        Would MOMA put it on display?

      • Jon Doh

        Subway™ started this shit by calling their submarine assembly people sandwich artist years ago. If they’re artist, why do I have to tell them what to put in the bun?

    • Tor

      Jack should have the freedom to say “no” to some custom artistic projects while saying “yes” to all people.

      That statement makes no sense to me. Would someone please explain it?

      “Yes, gay people, we will not make a custom artistic cake for you.”

      • Blake Paine

        It makes no sense because it is trying to say an unconstitutional thing in a deceptive way.

        Can the Safeway bakery serve all people but reject some decorating requests? Sure, that’s common sense. They are trying to get you to think ‘yes’ to that situation and then say that means they could have two identical cakes and refuse to sell one such ‘project’ to a customer because of their civil rights class related usage for it.

        Just had a moron try to do just that a few minutes ago.

        This is a shell game and I hope the State attorneys are going to be ready for all such deceits and the justice questions that will be asked to promote them.

        They will have time to prepare though, looks like the case won’t be heard until December or later – still not on the docket.

    • Squicky

      I like the points you make very much, highlighting the distinctions between an individual person (a baker) and a larger business (a bakery). I guess it would tougher to make the distinction if this guy ran the entire business himself and really didn’t have anyone else to delegate the task to. Thoughts on this?

      • Blake Paine

        Although that would be a different case even then there are temporary hires and 3rd party contractors. Elane Photography when complaining about taking the pictures of a lesbian commitment ceremony admitted they hired 3rd party photographers in the past.

        The website has been ‘scrubbed’ to their current ideology but thanks to the wayback archives we know that the time, 2012, this business had 2 locations, had been in business for 19 years and even suggested that people look at the wedding cake gallery and ask for modifications to those cakes for ‘your wedding’. I am sure there were cakes that were very customized and very expensive but they had lots of standards that people just modified like buying a car – color and accessories package. I bet there were many employees (now fired and oddly not being ever mentioned in the ADF dog and pony show) in-house that could have done that job and probably did – if the 2 locations did 200+ wedding cakes a year its a safe bet that Jack wasn’t doing 4 complete wedding cakes a week.

        Arlene’s Flowers in Washington is in the same boat, one long term employee quit on the spot when told to treat customer’s illegally, its a safe bet that Eryn would have happily taken care of these customers from counter to clean up.

        Both business owners could have taken the day off.

        And we don’t know what the customer would have wanted because both were rejected for their usage, not their designs.

        And the excuse of ‘religious liberty’ has been dealt with by the courts already way back in 1966 where Piggie Park Enterprise’s owner had the sincerely held belief that the races shouldn’t mix an so refused black customers. The court said:

        Undoubtedly defendant Besieger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.

        This will be political since several of the justices are going to be advocates for the bigots and try and trick the defense to say things that they can use by asking them hypotheticals. Them screwing up on their answers opening doors for rationalizing a right to religious discrimination is our greatest risk.

  • Tom000

    The Southern Baptist Church used their religion as a VALID reason to exclude Americans of African ancestry. That’s how the A.M.E. group got started.

    (They said they didn’t like the direction this Country was going. Now I know which direction they wanted: Backwards)

    • FredDorner

      Religious cults are private clubs so they’re free to discriminate on any basis. But what the bigoted baker is asking would undermine all public accommodations laws at the state level, which is why the court will rule against him.

      • It’s a Republican court now. They don’t have to follow the US Constitution any more, because the GOP rule the entire country.

    • Baltimatt

      AME broke off from the Methodist Church, and that was before the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention.

  • trouble94114

    I guess I’m overly optimistic here but given as how the makeup of the court really hasn’t changed since Obergefell, I’m hopeful that the 5 judges who ruled for it, also rule that public accommodation laws passed by a local or state government , or the federal government with regards to providing goods and services in the public square, supersede one’s (erroneously) perceived 1st amendment protections for providing goods and services to people with whom you aren’t in agreement.

    • WarrenHart

      Republicans have to gin up an issue that the conservative Christians can rally around for the mid term elections and this looks like one of them. They probably hope they dont win it so they can continue to fan the flames…You know how they are.

    • The Republican Party now own SCOTUS since Gorusch was installed. Future vacancies will all be filled anti-LGBT judges.

      • Tor

        All he’s saying, is, for now, Gorsuch is a Scalia replacement. The old balance remains. I hope that is true.

  • Phillip in L.A.

    Also note the per curiam decision from June 26, 2017, in Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (summarily reversing, without oral argument or briefing, the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court [2016 Ark. 43, 505 S.W.3d 169] denying the petition of two married women who conceived a child through anonymous sperm donation, but were forced to sue Arkansas to include both their names on the child’s birth certificate).

  • rednekokie

    This guy is a Southern bigot. He regards anyone who is not just like him — either in race, color, religion, or orientation, to be 3/5 of a person (or less, if that much) as outlined in the constitution.
    He has never given up on the Confederacy, and he extends his hatred toward black people to gay people, other religions people, and most anyone who won’t cowtow to him.
    A truly mean, vindictive, incredibly unkind individual.
    With not one drop of the milk of human kindness flowing in his veins.

    • Baltimatt

      Please get the 3/5 concept correct.

      • rednekokie

        Article 3 of the constitution specifies that non-free persons shall be considered 3/5 of a person when accounting for the number of representatives a state shall have in the United States House of Representatives.
        Although that was changed by the 14th amendment and removed, allowing all persons born in the U. S. or naturalized citizens to be considered a whole person, there are still many people in the South who have never acknowledged that amendment. This guy is one of them, in my opinion.

        • Baltimatt

          Article 3 of the constitution specifies that non-free persons shall be considered 3/5 of a person when accounting for the number of representatives a state shall have in the United States House of Representatives.

          Exactly.

          • rednekokie

            that’s what I said. Sorry if you couldn’t understand it.

          • Baltimatt

            I read is as you were stating that the Constitution outlined considering people as 3/5 of a person because “race, color, religion, or orientation,”

          • rednekokie

            The constitution relates only to slave labor. However, what it says is what the southern politicians have continually applied to anyone with whom they disagree or dislike. This particular southerner is particularly guilty of that. That’s all I meant. No other explanation with come — it’s not worth it.

          • Baltimoresuntalkforum

            Boy you sure add an dynamic exciting approach to your posts!!!! 😬😳

            What would those boards be without your insights? 😎

            http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/283183-ex-felon-saves-arizona-troopers-life/

  • greenmanTN

    OT, just because it’s funny and we could use some funny…

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-PgTjhx1VLw

  • Squicky

    This guy isn’t very skilled at being cruel. Here’s what i would say if I was a homophobic baker: “I will make your cake if you want me to, though you should know that because of my own personal convictions, all profit I make from my sale to you will be donated to an anti-gay organization.”

    This way he would get to be a horrible asshole AND not violate the law, since he’s not refusing service. Most gay couples would not want their money to go to such a cause and would go elsewhere. If they DID buy the cake, the baker could take sadistic, pious pleasure in knowing that he was souring their happy day. This guy is a bush league homophobe at best.

    • KnownDonorDad

      True, being a sanctimonious a-hole is not illegal. But of course, they want to be martyrs.

    • Snarkaholic

      He could also add “special” ingredients.

  • KnownDonorDad

    Republicans and Democrats are clearly the same.

    • leastyebejudged

      Clearly they aren’t, I mean, Democrats had a majority yet permitted the Republicans to just take the election.

      Those most ready and willing to rule end up ruling. The complicity of Democrats in this disaster is not lost on people paying attention.

      • KnownDonorDad

        All I’m saying is, the Dems wouldn’t be backing the cake martyrs.

      • Tor

        Ironically, the party that claims government is the problem, is now the government.

  • Charlotte Spak

    As soon as the supreme Court hands down a decision stating that businesses have a constitutional right to refuse service to LGBT people, we no longer live in a free country, no longer live in a democracy. We will be living in a nazi christian dictatorship.

    • Paul

      We can then discriminate against christian fundies.

      Of course you’d say it’s because they’re straight of course. *nudge nudge*

    • Baltimatt

      Not sure how they can logically allow only discrimination against LGBT people. Either “religious freedom” can override any non-discrimination laws, or it can’t.

  • No More GOP.

    Hopefully, he’s raised such distaste among the judiciary that they’ll rule to spite him. No, of course this wouldn’t happen… solely. But it could be a factor in the unconscious deliberations a judge makes.

  • I guess we’ll see what the Supreme Court says. If the Supreme Court says business owners CAN turn away customers for religious reasons, it will be interesting to see it that means a baker or florist can turn away Muslim couples as well.

    It will also be interesting to see how judges and courts determine which cases of discrimination are motivated by “religious freedom,” and which are motivated by simple animus. Do we simply take the business owner’s word for it? And if the baker is an Atheist who doesn’t like Gay marriage, is he out of luck?

    • another_steve

      You raise all the interesting questions, Chuck.

      If my religious beliefs inform me that Catholics are the spawn of the devil, can I legally refuse to bake Catholics cakes?

      What about if I think black people are Satan’s tools?

      No cakes for them, either?

      • Tor

        If you were a Jewish baker, could you refuse to sell my gentile self some matzoh? The possibilities and permutations are endless. It is about actions, not beliefs.

        • another_steve

          “Religious liberty” is a pernicious metaphor for hatred. Blind, bigoted hatred.

          The theofascist right has latched on to it because they understand how difficult it will be to combat in the courts and in the public opinion arena.

          • Snarkaholic

            From the New Testament: James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
            Therefore, ALL straight people (all of whom, according to the bible, are sinners) are murderers and need to be locked up!

          • another_steve

            During my active years – before my thyroid died and I became virtually useless – I broke quite a few of the commandments.

            Today, I’m a sort of useful eunuch of the Lord.

          • Snarkaholic

            Useless??? Surely, ye jest!!!

          • another_steve

            “Useful,” girl.

            I ain’t quite finished yet.

      • Snarkaholic

        Sign to put on your bakery door: All (straight) women wishing to purchase a wedding cake MUST provide irrefutable PROOF of virginity.

        • another_steve

          Ohmigod the burden that that places on me, as bakery shop owner.

          Will I have to personally examine vajayjays and their internal bits – to substantiate the evidence submitted?

          • Snarkaholic

            No need…they, unable to provide said proof…will storm off in a huff.

    • Snarkaholic

      What about a Jehovah’s Witness baker who is asked to make holiday cakes?

    • The DoJ is flying right in the face of precedent (which it probably wants overturned): Employment Division v. Smith (1990). From the majority opinion, by none other than Antonin Scalia:

      “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.”

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

      If the Court finds for Masterpiece, unless the decision is very tightly limited, it’s going to cripple every non-discrimination law on the books, starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And even if it is narrowly drawn, it’s a foot in the door.

      Of course, that’s what Sessions wants.

  • kaydenpat

    But but but I thought Ivanka was an ally. What has happened? /s

    • Mikey

      remember: an ally to Liars, Grifters, Bigots, and Terrorists.

      • Snarkaholic

        And to the (gay) guy who cuts her hair…
        …but only until she leaves the salon.

    • Snarkaholic

      A random gay guy criticized the shoes she was wearing…

  • Michael A. Lozoya

    The whole Trump administration can eat chocolate pie (“The Help” style).

  • fuow

    Yeah, voting Green to teach us Democrats a lesson was totally worth it, no?

  • At the behest of US voters, the anti-gay, anti-healthcare, racist , misogynist and warmongering Republican Party now own all branches of US governance, the White House, the Congress – both the House of Representatives and the Senate AND the Supreme Court; they command the majority of US state legislatures and governorships AND they command the US Military. They didn’t get there on their own, or by accident, they were put there by American voters, regardless of gerrymandering, voter fraud, voter absenteeism, or any other flies in the ointment.

    The problem isn’t with all these politicians who won office at the ballot, it is with the voters who put them there in the first place, expressly or otherwise to pass anti-LGBT laws, strip Americans of universal healthcare and education, give tax cuts to the rich who neither want them nor need them, and rescind laws that protect racial and LGBT minorities from unjust discrimination. At the behest of US voters, and in direct defiance of the 1st Amendment, they are steadily weaving their diverse private religious beliefs into public policy.

    This will not improve until we reach out to our adversaries, instead of making demands. Minorities cannot realistically make demands from majorities. We have to be smarter. We were over-confident and now it’s coming back to bite us. The best we can attempt to do is minimise the reversals until dialogue can resume.

    • FredDorner

      Are you suggesting compromise with dumb bigots? Why?

      • No I am suggesting talking to them. People are less likely to attack minorities when they get to know them personally. Why do you suppose coming out has worked so well?

        • FredDorner

          The views of dumb bigots were taken into account when these laws were passed and when they were amended.

          Their views were further considered when the civil rights commission investigated and when it offered the dumb bigot a chance to remedy his behavior and get off with a slap on the wrist. He refused.

          • Explain how you are going to get anywhere by simply demanding and not listening.

          • FredDorner

            ??? The civil rights commission and the state courts both listened to the bigoted baker. He still lost every step of the way because he has no legitimate argument for violating the law.

            Note that it’s exactly the same issue as if he had denied service because the customers were a mixed-race couple.

          • The bakers argue that being gay is a choice, and that a same sex
            wedding violates their deeply held religious beliefs. They don’t see
            this as being the same as racial discrimination which they agree is
            innate. This is also the view of the Republican Party and now the Justice Dept as well, and in case you hadn’t noticed, they have their hands on the controls of all three branches of US governance, not to mention most of the states.

            The problem in America right now is that the whole country is ruled by the Republican Party, and they not only won’t enforce existing laws protecting LGBT minorities, they’ll vacate all the civil rights advances made by LGBT over the past decades, especially same-sex marriage. On the record, Trump already has said – “I’ll overturn the shocking Supreme Court gay marriage decision, trust me”.

            Voters keep returning the Republican Party, the anti-gay Party of No, to political office. There’s the problem right there. We have lost the ‘hearts and minds’, through over confidence, and we need to win them back.

            As I said already further up the thread, laws work only because the majority already obey them. If the majority decide they don’t want to obey a certain law, who will enforce it?

          • FredDorner

            The bigoted baker’s argument is entirely without merit and the DOJ was unable to explain why they think religious views can be used as an excuse to violate a public accommodation law in one case but not the other. Colorado protects both race and sexual orientation and doesn’t distinguish in its treatment of them.

            What the bigot’s religious views are of those classes is irrelevant to the law but it should be noted that he belongs to a cult which was literally founded to promote slavery and white supremacy.

            Also I’m not sure why you keep whining about the majority vs the minority. These civil rights laws exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but today the majority of the public fully supports these laws. The dumb bigots have utterly lost on these cultural issues.

          • I know about John Adams, and the 14th Amendment, and the reason for its existence. As we saw with the failure of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, opinion polls are useless. The only poll that counts is the one on the day. The ‘majority’ now vote the anti-gay Republican Party across the land. And if the majority outnumber the disliked minority, who is going to enforce the laws protecting them?

          • FredDorner

            The courts do the enforcement. That’s always been the case even in the Jim Crow states, but it sometimes has been a reason for the federal courts to get involved.

            Also note that the 14th Amendment has nothing per se to do with this issue. It’s the state public accommodations law which is being enforced by the courts.

          • Same sex marriage was won under the 14th Amendment:
            https://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage.html

            The public accommodations law issue is pursuant to the Obergefell decision, and so the 14th Amendment is not without relevance.

            The Supreme Court is being asked to rule on the DOJ brief, and it’s a politically appointed court.

          • FredDorner

            Obergefell is irrelevant here, both because it’s not relevant to the state law in question and because the events occurred before the Obergefell ruling.

            The only substantive issue before the court is whether religious claims can be used to violate state law.

          • It is relevant because before Obergefell, same sex marriage was not ubiquitous across all states in the USA. It is Obergefell that has lent urgency to the plethora of religious ‘freedom to discriminate’ laws, and it is the outcome of that which has led to same sex couples buying cakes to plight their troth.

            If SCOTUS rules in favour of this brief, then it will make unnecessary all these religious freedom laws, and allow all sorts of things people haven’t foreseen. For example, in a supermarket checkout, Catholic checkout operators will be empowered to refuse to sell condoms, Jewish checkout operators will be able to refuse to sell non-Kosher food, Muslim checkout operators will be enabled to refuse all of the above, to which you can add alcohol, and they will be able to refuse to serve Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, women not attired in the burqua or who drove a car to the supermarket, or who were out of the house without their husband’s permission or otherwise unaccompanied by him, or who have listened to music or who have an education or who have an intact clitoris or who are otherwise haram or unclean. Christians could refuse to serve anyone not a member of their church, e.g. Baptists could refuse service to Episcopalians on the basis of their deeply held religious belief.

            Employers will be powerless to dismiss such conscientious objectors because that would be discrimination.

          • FredDorner

            I totally agree about the adverse consequences to all public accommodations laws if SCOTUS were to rule for the bigoted baker, but Obergefell still has nothing whatsoever to do with that since this case isn’t about the legal right to marry or any of the contingent legal benefits. Nor did marriage equality exist in Colorado at the time the bigot denied service, so Obergefell is doubly irrelevant.

            This is about unlawful discrimination by a business, not discrimination by the state. The only legal issue is whether the state can enforce its public accommodations laws despite religious claims, and SCOTUS settled that issue in 1878 in Reynolds v US: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

          • – Unless the law of the land itself allows profession of belief to supersede public accommodation..

          • FredDorner

            Right, but note that such claims of religious exemption from generally applicable laws have been consistently ignored by the federal courts since 1878….including in public accommodation cases since 1964. So if SCOTUS rules for the baker it would reverse 139 years of precedent and court doctrine and effectively dismantle all of civil rights legislation. It won’t happen for that reason, but also because the ADF and the DOJ are flat wrong as a legal matter and because the dumb bigot has a simple remedy – to run his business a private members-only club.

          • 1964 isn’t exactly 139 years ago. ‘Separate but equal’ as it appertained to African Americans didn’t get repealed until 1964, up to which point they could be refused service, and still were and still are to this day. They couldn’t vote without discriminatory obstacle until August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act, despite this having been granted in 1896 with the 15th Amendment, They weren’t allowed to marry outside their race until 1967 with the repeal of the Jim Crow antimiscegenation laws.

            The US Supreme Court is politically appointed, and as we can see from the dissent among the judges, especially the narrow 5,4 for Obergefell, their decisions often hang on a knife edge. It won’t take much for them to find some technicality to reverse same-sex marriage once they agree the religious freedom laws stand. In Trump’s own words, “I’ll reverse that shocking Supreme Court gay marriage decision, trust me”. He has surrounded himself with evangelical Republicans to effectuate this very thing, starting with banning transgender from serving in the military.

          • FredDorner

            139 years ago is when SCOTUS first stated that religion isn’t an excuse to violate a generally applicable law, a precedent which has never been overturned.

            1964 is when SCOTUS first ruled on the constitutionality of public accommodation laws and it’s never overturned a single one despite religious claims made by dumb bigots.

            And SCOTUS has never once reversed a civil right once it’s recognized it.

    • bobbleobble

      Meanwhile back on planet Earth…

      These people are not interested in us reaching out to them. They don’t want to compromise so what you’re effectively advocating is an all out surrender while we get ridden over rough shod. It was always going to be a battle to maintain our hard won rights, it always is but we’re never going to get anywhere by kow-towing to people like this. If we don’t make demands we get ignored. Every step of the way minority rights are only won by minorities making demands and fighting for them to be achieved.

      Honestly if you had your way gay sex would still be criminalised never mind same sex marriage being a pipe dream.

      ETA in fact on further reflection I would say your position isn’t just surrender it’s akin to appeasement and is cowardice of the highest order. While you cower in the corner and hope the bullies don’t hit you too hard hopefully everyone else will be standing up for ourselves. If we fight for our rights but ultimately lose then at least we tried. If we just roll over then we don’t deserve any rights at all.

      • Explain how a minority of 5% can defend itself against a majority of 95% by demanding anything at all. What do the 5% do when the 95% refuse?

        Two sides facing off against each other, with neither listening to the other, but with one side 20x strong than the other.

        Go into a store tomorrow and demand that they serve you. Then see how good a service they give you.

        Your whole post is straw man. Read carefully what I wrote again, and see where I said we should kow-tow to anyone, or give up in an act of appeasement.

        • FredDorner

          Maybe you should learn what public accommodations laws are, how they work and the history of why they exist. Start there first and then learn what a protected class is and how these classes work.

          Note that the customers didn’t “demand” that the bigoted baker serve them. They went elsewhere and found a better cake made by a more ethical baker…….and then they filed a complaint with the state so that the public doesn’t experience the same unlawful discrimination they did.

          • Laws work only because the majority already obey them. If the majority decide they don’t want to obey a certain law, who will enforce it?

          • FredDorner

            That’s what happened in the confederate states for many decades, particularly in areas where the local cops, prosecutors, judges and juries were all part of a white supremacist conspiracy not to enforce laws where the victim was black and the perp was white. That’s why both race and religion are protected under federal civil rights law.

            Fortunately the situation is quite different today since the majority of the public supports these public accommodation laws and there’s zero question as to whether they’ll be enforced.

            The best part is that the public is using its right not to patronize businesses owned by dumb bigots. In every single one of these anti-gay baker, florist and dress maker cases the business has either gone under or lost most of its customers once the public learned that it was run by a bigoted bible-babbler. The baker here admits that he’s already lost at least 40% of his customers and they haven’t come back, so his bakery no longer has regular hours and is open by appointment only.
            That won’t change regardless of the legal outcome of this case.

          • Exactly my point. Winning the ‘hearts and minds’ involves considerable effort, street marches, public meetings forging friendship with straight allies and this is pretty much impossible to do so from inside the closet. We’ve got this far largely through this process, and i beleive we became complacent once Obergefell was ruled on. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

            When it comes to religious bigotry, all I do is quote their own bible back to them. All online btw, as I don’t know any religious bigots personally in my circle of religious friends.

        • bobbleobble

          Talk of minimising the losses and not making demands and desperately hoping that these people will eventually speak to us when they’ve shown absolutely no desire to do that ever IS about kow-towing and appeasing these people. You’re living in cloud cuckoo land and I maintain that if we adopted your attitude we’d not only not have marriage equality but gay sex would still be illegal.

    • ZRAinSWVA

      Derek, there has been a well-organized, well-funded, Christian-based movement to “take back” government, starting with county elections and school boards, and working upwards city by city and state-by-state. They’ve been less than subtle, and they’ve been very successful. We (the left) must do the same, else we will live in society ruled by religion, not law. They will not bow. They do not respect us. They are not willing to compromise. They must be fought, hard, before it’s too late…if it’s not already too late.

      • I am well aware of this and it is this left/right divide that is poisoning the dialogue. There is far more that unites the warring sides than divides them. That’s a good place to start.

    • Barry William Teske

      “At the behest of US voters, the anti-gay, anti-healthcare, racist , misogynist and warmongering Republican Party now own all branches of US governance, the White House, the Congress – both the House of Representatives and the Senate AND the Supreme Court; they command the majority of US state legislatures and governorships AND they command the US Military.”

      Seems to me your point is possibly deaf to your own eyes…

      Coercion:

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Coersion

      Sometimes the answer is one of the oldest in the law books.
      Sometimes it is as easy as saying ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

      As an outsider looking in, so far the ‘fire’ is going unnoticed by Americans, for none of you, it seems, connects the ‘theatre’ to be a troop of really bad actors with a really sad sense of self, causing everyone to throw kindling at others, as being ‘fires’ and such.

  • Gregory Peterson

    Speaking of bigoted wedding cake bakers, I did some long critical comments to an article, ‘Why religious liberty matters for creativity’ By Jason Thacker on a Southern Baptist Leader, Russell Moore’s Facebook page if you should want to read them or add your own.

    https://www.facebook.com/russellmoore/

  • Chaz Antonelli

    When do THEY play softball?

  • MusicBear88

    I am not properly schooled in the minutiae of these kinds of briefs, but Mr. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions’ name does not appear anywhere in the 41 page document. He is the Attorney General of the United States of America; why won’t he stand by this bigotry?

    • FredDorner

      Sessions had the anti-civil rights & pro-sharia law division of the DOJ right the brief.

  • EdA

    So much for the idea of “Equal justice under all.” There is barely a Republiscum who can recite the Pledge of Allegiance without perjuring itself.

    And I am sure that there are some Log Cabin Republicans who will be putting whipped cream on this piece of santorum and calling it a latte.

    • Snarkaholic

      PAGING REV(OLTING) JAMES MANNING!

  • Richard B

    With Gorsuch in the SCOTUS mix, we have a dark uphill battle.

  • Vista-Cruiser

    Yes this is horrible. But it’s also a direct and foreseeable result of Democrats no longer bothering to vote in elections.

    • Ross

      Actually, Hillary got more votes than any white man in history. So, Dems ARE voting.

      And, did Trump win? Or did Russia hack the vote for him?

    • Mike

      More Democrats should vote. The bigger problem is the piss poor job Democrats do convincing the dimwits what Republican policy poisons and impoverishes them, and liberal policy rescues them. If Bernie could do it, more could.

  • jonfromcalifornia

    Did anybody expect anything less than that from these bigots?

  • Richard B

    We feared this day would come. Trump and his allies are working to establish through the courts, the legalized right to discrimination against the LGBTQ through out our land.
    This is as serious it comes and the consequences will affect all of us all for generations.
    The gay community has seen the empowerment of mortal enemies that have declared war on our gentle people and to survive, all good members of our tribe must be prepared to offer and organized whatever necessary resources are required to eliminate the menace.
    This amicus brief must be stopped and the evil bigots that threaten us all must be eliminated.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Wah. You homos really are drama queens. Nobody is taking away your rights. Nobody even cares about you. Get a grip.

  • coram nobis

    More Betsy DeVos and sexual harassment.

    http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-devos-boermeester-20170907-story.html

    USC expelled Boermeester after a school investigation found he put his hands around the neck of his girlfriend, Zoe Katz, and pushed her into a wall. Katz said Title IX Office investigators ignored her assertion that Boermeester never abused her.

    “The young woman repeatedly assured campus officials she had not been abused nor had any misconduct occurred,” DeVos said. “But because of the failed system, university administrators told her they knew better.”

  • Robin Bailey

    And fuck all the gay people who bought into the bullshit that Trump was the best friend gays ever had. Morons.

  • NowVoyager
  • ursulas
  • The Professor

    Of FUCKING-course they did.

  • Buford

    For the life of me, I’ll never understand how they can seriously suggest that a person can make a lifestyle choice which, effective immediately, legally grants that person the right to discriminate against others.

    I’m really hoping for the organized effort whereby businesses begin refusing service to self-identifying Christians.

  • JulieRPatton

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!!!
    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
    !ql83d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash83FinderAll/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ql83t..,..

  • joe ho

    Gay lawyer David Lat (Above the Law) thinks it’s OK if they don’t have to bake our wedding cakes.

    “Take Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the Court agreed to hear next Term. In doctrinal terms, the question persented (per SCOTUSblog) is “[w]hether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.” In practical terms, it can be (crudely) framed this way: does the marriage right in Obergefell include the right to have an unwilling baker make your wedding cake? (Note my use of the word “crudely”; I realize I am grossly oversimplifying here.)

    I expect this case will turn, yet again, on Justice Kennedy. But how he will vote here is far from clear (perhaps even to the justice himself).

    Justice Kennedy is the great champion of gay rights on the Court, and he is aware of that legacy. Recall my prediction that Obergefell would come down on June 26, the same hand-down day as two of his other Big Gay Cases, Lawrence and Windsor — and my suspicion that Justice Kennedy had a hand in things when it did. So AMK might see Masterpiece as the wedding cake topper for his scrumptious gay-rights legacy.

    On the other hand, Justice Kennedy, a California libertarian at heart, also falls hard for the First Amendment, rarely encountering a First Amendment claim that he doesn’t like. So I could also see AMK siding with the conservatives in Masterpiece Cakeshop, taking a middle ground between the conservatives and the liberals that he has alternated between delighting and angering all these years.

    When my husband and I got married in 2015 — a few months after Obergefell, and yes, we used part of Justice Kennedy’s opinion as a ceremony reading (it wasn’t as clichéd then as it is now) — a dear friend who is a phenomenally talented baker prepared our beautiful, delicious, towering red-velvet cake. That cake was baked with love. I would much rather have our cake than a cake that we compelled someone to make for us using the force of law.

    So maybe we gays can’t have our cake and eat it too — and maybe that’s not such a terrible thing. If not being able to force bakers to make cakes for us is the price we have to pay for preserving the central right articulated in Obergefell, then so be it. If we want people to respect our humanity, dignity, and autonomy, then maybe we should respect theirs. Live and let live, I say.”

    http://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/4-reasons-why-gay-marriage-is-safe-even-after-justice-anthony-kennedy-retires-from-the-supreme-court/

    • FredDorner

      This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obergefell since it’s about a state’s public accommodation laws.

  • easygoingmister

    The “Golden Rule” according to the New Testament for Christianity:

    Matthew 7:12 > Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    Mark 12:29-31 > And Jesus answered him, … thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Luke 6:31 > And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

    Not sure if it is in John’s gospel so I’ve put the question to my academic friends that study religions.

  • Mike C

    How did all these assholes end up go into baking?

  • Dale Snyder

    Uh, he broke the law, assholes.

  • Stubenville

    Go back to your goddam hollow tree, you crappy Keebler elf.

  • wmforr

    Welcome to the government of, by, and for the foxes in the hen-house.

  • James M. Kirwan

    They’re going to win more and more. We’re fucked as American citizens. There is going to be a Constitutional Convention, run by Conservatives, that will encode legal discimination in the American Constitution, that will strip any gay rights we now have, will reverse marriage equality, and leave it “up to the states” to criminalize sex between people of the same gender. I don’t think some of you understand how serious this is. All it takes is one more Conservative judge and it will be the end of us as free people.