ALABAMA: Roy Moore’s Hate Group Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief In Support Of Anti-Gay Colorado Baker

Via press release from Christian Newswire:

The Foundation for Moral Law, a Montgomery nonprofit corporation dedicated to the defense of the Constitution as written and intended by its Framers and to the free exercise of religion, has filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in defense of a Colorado bakery and its owner.

A gay couple filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop for its refusal to create a custom-decorated cake for their wedding. Owner Jack Phillips refused their request because as a Christian he could not endorse what God declares to be sin. He was willing to serve homosexuals generally, but believed that baking a wedding cake would send a message of approval of same-sex marriage. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Phillips must fulfill the couple’s request.

Masterpiece sought review in the U. S. Supreme Court which accepted the case. The Foundation has filed an amicus brief urging the High Court to rule that Masterpiece is protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

Foundation President Kayla Moore said concerning the case: “The Foundation is proud to stand with Masterpiece and its owner, Jack Phillips. He is a sincere Christian who is being faithful to the Word of God.”

Foundation Senior Counsel John Eidsmoe added: “The choice of the name ‘Masterpiece’ for the bakery demonstrates that Mr. Phillips regards his cakes as artistic expression. The First Amendment’s express protections for speech and religion should not be eclipsed by a so-called right that is a recent invention of the Courts. Hate is not a family value, but moral conviction is not hatred.”

The Foundation For Moral Law was founded by Moore in 2002 and has been headed by his wife since his 2013 reelection to the Alabama Supreme Court.

To date the Moores have raked in more than a million dollars in salary from the tiny “non-profit.” The FML is presently under fire for failing to file its required Form 990s for 2015 and 2016.

Their mission statement: “The Foundation for Moral Law exists to restore the knowledge of God in law and government and to acknowledge and defend the truth that man is endowed with rights, not by our fellow man, but by God!”

NOTE: FML lawyer John Eidsmoe was Michele Bachmann’s “professor” at Oral Roberts “University.” As did hate group leader Tony Perkins, Eidsmoe has addressed the convention of the Council Of Conservative Citizens, formerly the White Citizens Council, which advocates against “all efforts to mix the races of mankind.” Like Perkins and Eidsmoe, terrorist mass murderer Dylann Roof is a fan of the CCC.

  • bambinoitaliano

    These asshole talk a lot of smack. I doubt they even tasted the hateful cakes pay with their own money.

    • Treant

      On the up side, I have the right of free association as well, so I–and ever so many others–would never enter Masterpiece to buy a cake.

      Including some former customers, I’m sure. Unsurprisingly, businesses caught in these types of things have an even lower survival percentage by far than other businesses who do not discriminate.

      I find that heartening.

      • bambinoitaliano

        I prefer to patronize establishment who dedicate their passion into their products. How good of a bakery can it be when they are preoccupy with who should and should be buying their cake? Not like they invented dessert.

        • Christopher

          “Not like they invented dessert.”

          IKR!

          But getting accolades from Diana would be awesome!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_tZyLX1iAs

        • Treant

          Tell me about it. I make soap. I gift soap to friends and relatives.

          When I’m making the soap, I’m working on the chosen chemistry and design balance. I am not worried about whether that soap will eventually be used on a female, transgendered person, gay person, or cisgender heterosexual male. I don’t care and that’s not my thought process at that point anyway.

          • vorpal 😼

            You make soap, too?
            Is there anything that you don’t do?

            You are super awesome, Treant. I wish I had a quarter of your motivation!

          • Treant

            I also make my own laundry soap (distinct from “Laundry Detergent” which is what they call the stuff you find on shelves because it isn’t, legally speaking, soap). Also, fabric softener. Window cleaners, pot-scrubbing solutions, and whatnot. I don’t do dishwasher detergent because my husband won’t let me.

            I just sewed the hem on my pants, which I had tailored myself as a 30 length apparently doesn’t mean the same thing to them as it does to me. It was more like a 36.

            I’m wearing a cologne of my own devising (vetiver, mostly, with notes of lime and a few other sweet things to offset the vetiver). I store my own seeds and breed the plants for the characteristics I want. My home library encompasses several library shelves. I can do basic plumbing and electrical work, but nothing complicated.

            I design and build little electronic toys for fun, mostly involving LEDs because I like things that light up. I never really got over being 3, apparently.

            That encompasses the major stuff, but if you look, a lot of it is inter-related, so there’s no surprise I moved from one thing to the next.

          • vorpal 😼

            I bathe and get dressed in the morning… most of the time.
            Some days, it doesn’t go much further than that :-).

            Why won’t your husband let you make dishwasher detergent?

            I actually do have a plethora of hobbies (e.g. knitting, although I was always just so-so at it – pun not intended – and studying languages) but they tend to fall by the wayside in favour of lazier endeavours like wasting too much time online and playing video games.

            (I didn’t know the difference between soap and detergent until your comment prompted me to look it up. You JMGers are constantly making me learn new and interesting things.)

          • Treant

            “I like Cascade” is the hubby’s response. To which I always say that it’s 50% sodium carbonate and 50% sodium borate. Both of which I have pounds of in the laundry room to the tune of $1 a pound.

            My mom knits! I never learned how, but I appreciate the plethora of knitted scarves and gloves and things I have around.

            I also waste lots of time online and playing video games. Both of which can be counted as hobbies–and time you enjoyed wasting…was it really wasted? I always say it wasn’t.

            The US has some weird laws on soap, and only something 72% pure can be called that. Most of us laugh at that restriction and go 98 to 100% pure. Don’t get me started on Ivory. 99 44/100% pure my ass.

          • greenmanTN

            Don’t be fooled. He makes extra slippery soap just so he can drop it in crowded gym showers. 😉

      • vorpal 😼

        They’re so deluded, though, that they’ll invariably claim that you’re persecuting them and discriminating against them by choosing to take your business elsewhere.

        Remember when Mississippi businesses started displaying the “We don’t discriminate: if you’re buying, we’re selling” stickers in their windows and anti-LGBT Christian hate groups and businesses started screeching about how that was somehow a form of persecution?

        Or how, apparently, boycotts of businesses that discriminate against LGBT people are fascist and oppressive, but boycotts against organizations that support LGBT equality and that don’t fight in defense of the noble “War on Christmas” are admirable and doing god’s work?

        Unbelievable.

        • Treant

          Let them whine. There’s no way they can force me to buy their cakes, and they look even dumber than usual when complaining about it!

          They think people don’t notice, but really, most people are too mannerly to call their bigoted asses out in public.

          • vorpal 😼

            You big sexy liberal gay bully, you :-).

            They’re just whiny because our boycotts actually seem to gain momentum and make people sit up and take notice and elicit change, whereas most people haven’t even heard of many right-wing Christian boycotts like NOM’s versus Starbucks.

            Also, the organizations frequently being “boycotted” by the far-right are organizations that the far-right wouldn’t have typically been doing business with in the first place. Redneck Cletus probably never set foot in one of them fancy-shamncy Starbucks places in his life. 😹

          • Treant

            Please, Cletus got his wedding cake at the Wal-Mart.

            A bait and tackle shop could probably get away with it. Cake, cookie, anything frou-frou…not so much.

          • Dale Snyder

            Home Depot comes to mind. I’ve never known any fundie who does its own home improvements.

  • Todd20036

    Of course he does. Because filthy fags should be second class citizens at best, reeducation camp “students” at worst.

    • bambinoitaliano

      Unlike his 8 times arrested son.

      • Skokieguy [Larry]

        Perhaps shops should refuse to bake his son a cake?

        • bambinoitaliano

          Won’t work. He will break in and get his 9th arrest.

    • matrem

      Camps cost too much money. Shot on sight is what he wants for us.

  • PickyPecker
  • Tawreos

    I hope the judge notices how many hate group are supporting the baker and takes a moment to think about that.

  • Treant

    Gaining him another half point in the election!

  • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

    These parasites are looking to entrench themselves into the Constitution. Act now, or you risk later.

  • vorpal 😼

    People like Roy Moore fail to realize that there is a distinction between the rights of Jack Phillips and the rights of his shop, Masterpiece Cakeshop.

    Jack Phillips’ rights were not violated and he’s not the one being called into court.
    Masterpiece Cakeshop is the entity that violated the law and is facing the court.

    • Todd20036

      You’d think a lawyer would realize that.

      • vorpal 😼

        You’d also think a lawyer would realize that the bible isn’t a legal textbook.

        • james1200

          They must realize their hypocisy, no? They rail against Sharia Law but at the same time they want to bring the bible into government. They make me fucking crazy.

          • vorpal 😼

            They haven’t yet realized their hypocrisy for about 2000 years.
            What makes you think they’ll start now?

          • JenniferRGonzales

            Boost your earnings on Google & make $99/hour by working from a home computer.
            on tuesday I bought a great Ford when I got my check for $9355 this past five weeks . this is definitely my favourite-job Ive ever done . I began this 3 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringin home over $99, p/h . see this website
            !pz293d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GooglePagesOnlineHomeJobsReports/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!pz293h..,….

        • Nic Peterson

          Roy Moore is all about the Sharia law.

        • safari

          But, Natural Law…

          • vorpal 😼

            It’s completely Natural and objectively knowable, as evidenced by the bigoted freaks who spout it and can’t even agree on the most basic of tenets.

            Hence approximately 42,000 active denominations of Christianity in the world today.

    • bambinoitaliano

      The likes of him are just thugs who embraces the scriptures and the law and order selectively and only applicable to anyone of their choosing.

    • Tawreos

      If the business is a sole proprietor business then there is no distinction between him and the business. I am not up on laws where he is and they may account for that, but I would be willing to bet that this is where the challenge is coming from. I am also not a lawyer, so I can’t say for sure.

      • vorpal 😼

        In this specific case, IIRC, there are anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT people that it’s difficult to argue Masterpiece Cakeshop didn’t violate.

        My take on it is that trying to argue that this is a custom product and as such, MC can refuse the order, thus concluding that this is not discrimination is not a valid argument if MC would be willing to create the exact same custom order for a heterosexual couple.

        Unfortunately, most places don’t have laws protecting LGBT people, in which case, Masterpiece Cakeshop could have pulled this garbage and not faced any legal consequences for doing so.

    • Natty Enquirer

      In fact, it is the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that is being called into court. They are the defendant and appellee in this case.

      • vorpal 😼

        You’re right, of course: it’s Masterpiece Cakeshop that is bringing the case to court.

        Still, the point stands that it is Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. that is the entity named in the court case.

        • Natty Enquirer

          And unfortunately, SCOTUS has told us in Hobby Lobby that a fictitious person like a limited liability corporation may have religious rights. (ugh)

          • vorpal 😼

            Ugh. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions in recent history. Citizens United created the groundwork for a true legal avalanche shitshow.

            If corporations are people in the eyes of the law, when they break certain laws, we should be able to similarly “imprison” them.

          • Ninja0980

            And it’s why I’m not sure that Kennedy will be on our side in this one.
            As he showed with the Boy Scouts, discrimination by businesses seems to be more acceptable then public discrimination by the state.

        • Todd20036

          I still get a kick out of this loser suddenly calling himself a “cake artist” instead of a baker.

      • coram nobis

        The couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, are also listed as respondents.

    • coram nobis

      Except that the Court has started down that road, where for- and non-profit entities are not just persons, legally, but people of faith. As RBG wrote in her dissent in the Hobby Lobby case:

      Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. … The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight …

      In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

      Third parties. Customers, clients, tenants, employees. If the Court upholds the cake shop it means that any entity is free to enforce its beliefs on third parties in the course of business, and in exception to any civil law to the contrary.

      • vorpal 😼

        I am hoping that some organizations spring up and use rulings like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby to show how utterly absurd they are… but not hopeful.

        Given, though, that white heterosexual Christians are no longer the majority, we could reach a point where it’s fathomable.

        • Ninja0980

          And they will scream and shout when that happens.

  • Frostbite

    and yet he serves divorced, unwed mothers, etc. etc. he must not fear “god’s wrath” too much now does he?

  • kelven

    Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man. – Thomas Paine

    • Todd20036

      Change “cruel” to “slutty” and you’ve got me pegged.

      • Pip

        Got it, Bacchanalias all around for you then! 😉

  • kelven

    Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. – Thomas Paine

  • james1200

    He’ll still win! Probably in a landslide!! Another worthless hatemonger who exists only to make life miserable for us, which is, of course, why they’ll vote for him even though they know he won’t actually get shit done for them.

    https://y.yarn.co/1585d182-06f9-4429-b73d-1a4e216dba0d_text_hi.gif

  • AtticusP

    Roy Moore: as repulsive on the inside as he is on the outside.

    • orion dumptee

      true enuff ,and SC and NC ,have 1000s of his ‘clones’ running local,state,and fed offices

  • Tawreos

    How does one go about filing an Amicus Brief for the other side?

  • Steverino

    Patriotism may be the last refuge of a scoundrel, but fundamentalist Christianity is always the first refuge of a scoundrel.

    • Silver Badger

      Unless of course, you’re a Muslim. Perhaps fundamentalist religion would be a better term. 🙂

      • Steverino

        Yep, I almost wrote that, as it makes it applicable worldwide.

  • Adam Stevens

    Here’s exactly what I would do if I lived close enough…

    I would show up at his shop with a female friend. We would order our wedding cake from Jack and leave when the transaction is completed.

    On ‘your wedding cake is ready!’ day, I would show up again to pick up the cake, not have it delivered.

    In my pocket would be my topper with 2 grooms. When the final payment was made and the transaction completed, I would remove the man/woman topper, toss it in the shop’s trash bin, and place mine atop the cake, then depart the store.

    • bambinoitaliano

      I would not waste a penny on these asshole to make a point though.

      • Adam Stevens

        I would. Just to see Jack’s face.

    • Silver Badger

      I live in Denver, and won’t squander my money. I’ll bake my own damn cake.

      • Ken M

        That’s the other thing here. He never “had to” make the cake, and he didn’t. He hasn’t paid a penny, the case is still pending. Any employees, or business he has lost is on him and his actions. Guess he hasn’t been praying hard enough.

      • Pip

        Just go to Azucar Bakery, Badger. Marjorie always needs more love from the community. 🙂

        • FredDorner

          Isn’t that the bakery which made their wedding cake pro bono?

          • Pip

            They did offer, I’m not sure if the couple took them up on it. They are the bakery that was sued for refusing to make a cake for a right wing nut job who went in demanding she make open bible cakes with anti gay quotes and images. The bakery won the case.

    • FredDorner

      Better yet just start the transaction order with your female friend for a really, really expensive cake…..and then at some point one of you asks “Aren’t you Jack Phillips, the guy who refused service to a same-sex couple?” And then after some quiet discussion between the two of you just walk out of the store.

  • FML eh?
    I really think that about says it all, doesn’t it?

  • Thorn Spike

    His copy of the Constitution looks like it’s been trampled on. Several times.

    • Tawreos

      Trampled, but never read.

    • RJ Bone

      He keeps scouring it repeatedly looking for justification for his bigotry (and, I bet, racism). He “has faith” that if he goes through it enough times he’ll come across a Secret Message from His god(tm) encoded in equidistant letter sequencing, or something like that, that identifies him as Jesus incarnate, or his herald or something asinine.

  • RJ Bone

    Roy Moore is why I wish I believed in Hell.

    • Karl Dubhe

      I’d really rather believe in an afterlife, where you could take revenge on those who did you wrong.

      Although, given the number of ex’s I’ve had, that could be very bad. 🙁

      • RJ Bone

        I’d almost settle for just being able to haunt someone, as long as I could affect solid matter. Like them waking up in a bed filled with dildos perhaps, or a lawn filled with very… inappropriate signs that would attract… unwanted attention.

        Pilfering their credit card and subscribing them to every sex magazine on the planet.

        Of course, if ghosts existed then the means to get rid of them probably would to, so I wouldn’t get away with it for long.

        • Karl Dubhe

          Eh, I’m thinking only after you and the object of vengeance is toast.

          Sorta like magic spirits doing battle with each other. After all, the concept is magical. So more magic is useful.

  • PickyPecker

    OT: Anyone else experiencing disqus wonkiness?

    • Natty Enquirer

      For several days. Doesn’t update reliably.

  • safari
  • bkmn
    • Johnny Wyeknot

      But what’s the question?

  • safari
  • Ken M

    The baker only has one thing against him. The location of his bakery. His many arguments will not clear him from the laws of his town, county and state. Though privately owned, by him, his license is for a public business. Discrimination, even based on faith, is for the protection of the customer, not the business owner, at least not where his bakery is.

    • coram nobis

      Actually, that’s why this case went forward: he ran into local and state laws and wants SCOTUS to overturn them or at least carve out an exception. He didn’t have much luck with appellate courts, so it’s kind of extraordinary that the Court granted cert., and this will be potentially a historic case.

      Today’s SCOTUSblog has a new article on the case:

      The Supreme Court has also held, however, that even a religiously neutral law can violate the free exercise clause if the real object of the law is to disfavor religion or if the law as implemented by the state discriminates against religion. This case, Phillips contends, falls into the latter category, because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission allowed other bakers to refuse to sell cakes to customers who wanted anti-same-sex-wedding messages on their cakes. …

      The Supreme Court should rule against Phillips on his free-exercise-of-religion claims because the commission’s actions were not directed at his religious beliefs or practices but rather at his refusal to sell his commercial product to customers based, in the commission’s view, on the customers’ sexual orientation.

      http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/symposium-disentangling-free-speech-freedom-religion-masterpiece-cakeshop/#more-261482

      No doubt this case will attract more amicus briefs this month and next. Ongoing site for this case — filings, briefs, and commentary — is at:

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

      • Ken M
        • barrixines

          Dear dog – what on earth is that beige tiered thing with the bathroom mirror tiles on the tilt at the back. What sort of self respecting homosexuals are going into these dives in the first place?

          • coram nobis

            The beige/pink cake against the wall seems to be listing to port.

      • Natty Enquirer

        I think SCOTUS took this case because of the speech angle. We’re not only talking about refusing a service but (supposedly) resisting compelled speech.

        • coram nobis

          That’s in some of the briefs, and you’ll hear more about the Barnette pledge-of-allegiance case. It’s also about how far the Free Exercise of religion clause can override, say, the Establishment clause or anybody else’s expectation of equality.

        • Ken M

          Didn’t part of his claim get into him to “take part” in the wedding by making the cake? Something he never ending up having to do anyway.

        • FredDorner

          The reason SCOTUS granted cert is because Gorsuch was dumb enough and bigoted enough. Not even Scalia was quite that bad, so there weren’t 4 votes for cert before Gorsuch was on the court.

          Note that the court denied cert in the Elane Photography case even though it has a much stronger argument because the photographer does attend the wedding.

  • Pip

    I still cannot find anywhere in the bible where it’s said “Thou shalt not bake a cake for thy gays.” Am I missing pages?

    • Natty Enquirer

      It’s right next to “All faggots burn in hell.”

    • coram nobis

      There’s something about Jesus and a wedding in Cana, but I believe he provided wine for that one.

  • coram nobis

    From the married couple’s Nov. 2016 brief:

    Importantly, the exemption from antidiscrimination law that the Company argues for is not limited to custom wedding cakes or to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The implications of the Company’s claim, if it were
    accepted, are staggering. People hold religious beliefs about a wide variety of things, including racial and religious segregation and the role of women in society. If religious motivation exempted businesses from anti-discrimination laws, government would be powerless to protect all Americans from the harms of invidious discrimination. Landlords could refuse to rent to interracial couples, employers could refuse to hire women or pay them less than men, and a bus line could refuse to drive women to work, to name just a few examples. All civil rights laws would be vulnerable to such claims where the discrimination was motivated by religion.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/16-111-BIO-mullins-and-craig.pdf

  • jmax

    “…dedicated to the defense of the Constitution as written and intended by its Framers…”
    So let’s go back to just the first ten amendments and get rid of those other pesky 17 that have been added. Like abolishing slavery and allowing women to vote.

    • Natty Enquirer

      Ah, but the Framers intended that the Constitution be susceptible to amendment. What this really is about is the law made by judicial review.

    • The_Wretched

      The ‘originalists’ are very hostile to 13 / 14/ 15 – the post civil war amendments that freed the slaves and grants “equal protection” under the laws. They really hate everyone getting the same legal protections and have been fighting it ever since.

      • jmax

        I’m sure the Foundation for Moral Law (hahaha) would love to remove any amendments they don’t like in the name of ‘originality’.

  • bambinoitaliano

    Once upon a time I used to volunteer in a mental institution and also special care school for children with special need. These are needed institutions to help them cope with their limited skill of adaptation to a normal living. Some of them will eventually expand their scope and able to conduct a relatively successful life outside of the institutions. Fast forward to 2017, how the fuck did we allow a group of insane asylum seekers dictate the rest of humanity with their psychosis?

    • The_Wretched

      Christian privilege. Normal rules only sort of apply to them.

  • coram nobis

    As to how far the exercise of such religious beliefs can go, when a same-sex couple are the clients, let us remember the case of Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Langbehn

    • Karl Dubhe

      Is there a corresponding ability for others (whatever their beliefs) to retaliate in kind?

      If I hired a bunch of people who had different faiths, could they decide on their own to discriminate against customers? (I’m not sure if I’m even posing the question properly…)

      • coram nobis

        It’s possible. That county clerk in Kentucky was a functionary of the Commonwealth, but took it on herself to deny marriage licenses because of her personal beliefs.

        If one of your employees decided on their own to discriminate against a customer or tenant, your firm might be named as well, respondeat superior and all that.

        • Karl Dubhe

          Well, any of mine wouldn’t. 🙂 I’m in Canada.

          Money has no religion, but some people’s religion is money. 🙁

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    There is no new issue here that the courts have not already decided multiple times already. Why is this case not immediately thrown out? I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t there usually need to be some new twist or wrinkle in a case for the courts to revisit something that has already been decided?

    I realize that the real reason they’re doing this is because they got Trump elected and now they think they can reverse the last 150 years of history, but I’m trying to think like a legal scholar (which I’m not).

    • coram nobis

      No, this new line of religious freedom cases is opening up more mischief, and the Court has trended in that direction. In Hobby Lobby it ruled that religious belief can determine employee benefits, and in Trinity Lutheran it ruled churches had a right to public funding.

      It doesn’t look good.

      • FredDorner

        Hobby lobby was about the statutory intersection between the federal RFRA and a bad HHS policy concerning the ACA. It should have no application to this case.

        • coram nobis

          It will no doubt turn up as a citation in at least some amicus briefs.

          • FredDorner

            The DOJ’s amicus brief does cite it. I don’t recall if the ADF’s primary brief does, but they’d be negligent not to do so.

            But I don’t think it buys them anything in regards to public accommodations laws particularly since the issue of religious exemption claims was already addressed in 1968 in Newman v Piggie Park BBQ (in the 4th Circuit). Even though the issue was attorney’s fees under Title II of the CRA, note that SCOTUS unanimously said that it was patently frivolous for the defendant to argue that: …..the [1964 Civil Rights] Act was invalid because it ‘contravenes the will of God’ and constitutes an interference with the ‘free exercise of the Defendant’s religion.

            And as you’ve noted, if SCOTUS were to rule for the baker it would gut not just public accommodations laws in the country but also employment and housing non-discrimination laws. I doubt the court will choose to do that.

          • coram nobis

            Yes, and the trial court in Piggie Park said:

            “The free exercise of one’s beliefs,” the trial court explained, “as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to a society. Undoubtedly, [the restaurant owner] 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.”

            (h/t Scotusblog symposium)
            http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/symposium-discrimination-not-fundamental-american-value/

            So, the Court would be opening a Pandora’s box if it ruled that Free Exercise can override local and state law or, for that matter, the establishment clause.

          • FredDorner

            I’ve heard some people discount Piggie Park because SCOTUS granted cert primarily to address the issue of attorney’s fees, but it’s clear from the ruling that they found the religious claims to have no merit in the context of public accommodations laws.

            Plus there’s the 1878 precedent in Reynolds v US which Scalia cited in 1990 in Employment Div v Smith: “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.” I think that’s what separates Gorsuch from Scalia and it’s why cert was granted in the bakery case, although it’s pretty clear that Scalia was actually biased against non-Christian religions.

          • coram nobis

            The SCOTUS decision, per curiam, mostly discussed fees and the use of private attorneys general to enforce the Civil Rights Act. They brushed off the religious-defense argument in a footnote, as frivolous, though the trial court did address it. Apparently they felt that the Heart of Atlanta and McClung public-accommodations of 1964 should have settled the issue.

  • Tor

    “…he could not endorse what God declares to be sin. He was willing to serve homosexuals generally, but believed that baking a wedding cake would send a message of approval of same-sex marriage.”
    He’s got it wrong. Leviticus condemns homosexuals, but says nothing about same-sex marriage. On principle he should refuse service to all gay people.

    • jmax

      He doesn’t want to “send a message of approval of same-sex marriage”. So he has set himself above the law in deciding which individuals have the right to marry.
      No one is asking him to approve or disapprove. Just bake a fucking cake.

    • Gigi

      I worked as a wedding photographer for a number of years. Did taking wedding photos mean that I approved of the chosen lifestyles (they were mostly conservative christians) of the couples that I took photos of? Hell no!

  • Rex

    In situations like this I always ask myself – WWJD?
    I’m sure he’d make the cake, and turn some water into wine, just for the added flare.

  • Gigi

    Notice how they’ve worded their assessment of the case. They say the baker refused to create a custom-decorated cake for their wedding. Bakers aren’t really bakers you see, they’re “artists” who create “works of art” and, as such, shouldn’t be “forced” to compromise their “artistic integrity.” WRONG! You’re a for-profit business that must abide by the public accommodation laws that apply your business. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you’ll obey and which you’ll ignore no matter how “deeply held” your beliefs are.

  • JWC

    Wen is some one going to step on this law breaking little weasel and his bitch wife I ran this the other day but its truth is paramount https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2298759f2a2c527846e969bd04a3a9af973ab4e77456560822bce425d01194c2.jpg

  • FredDorner

    With the help of Roy Moore’s Foundation for Christian Sharia Law, hopefully I’ll no longer be forced to sell wedding cakes to Jewish or mixed-race couples either.

  • Karl Dubhe

    There was a story about how atheists don’t pull the shit on believers that the believers feel free to pull on anyone else.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/study-atheists-behave-more-fairly-toward-christians-than-christians-behave-toward-atheists/

    Keep on proving why god is a figment of the imagination. Assholes.

  • romanhans

    OT: I’m so glad JoeMyGod is an intelligent website and not click bait. The headline here is actually descriptive, whereas on every other website it would be, “You’ll Never Guess Who Filed A Lawsuit Against What!”

  • ted-

    Is it wrong to wish AL disappear off the face of the planet?