SCOTUS Sets Anti-Gay Baker Case For December 5th

Chris Johnson reports at the Washington Blade:

The U.S. Supreme Court has set Dec. 5 as the day for oral arguments on whether a Colorado baker has a First Amendment right to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples over religious objections.

The high court announced Friday the case, known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, will be the first of two arguments on that day.

Consideration of the case will mark the return of the U.S. Supreme Court to the issue of LGBT rights in the first major way since its milestone 2015 decision in favor of marriage equality nationwide.

Last month the DOJ filed an amicus brief siding with the anti-gay baker, who is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

  • Buford

    Once again… if your CHOICE to be religious conflicts with your other CHOICE of how you would like to earn a living, then you are the only one who can reconcile that conflict. You need to make some hard decisions. Your inability to plan your life is not our problem.

    • Jeffg166

      I read that a lot of his staff quit and his business was off 40%. The people working for him and the buying public decided to not support his point of view which he feels is persecution. He is free to believe in any religious mythology he want to. When the public decides they don’t agree with you it isn’t persecution.

      • olandp

        If he wanted to run a successful business, he should just bake the cake. He is fucked now, and not in the good way.

        • Buford

          I can’t understand why they don’t have to provide evidence of exactly WHERE and HOW their faith specifically forbids providing support to a same-sex marriage. It doesn’t… but these claims are taken at face value.

          If I claim to my bosses that my faith requires a window office so that I can maintain direct visual contact with nature, will they immediately accommodate the request, or would I have to somehow prove that my faith is ‘real’…?

          • j.martindale

            This is discussed in detail in the cases related to conscientious objectors that have come before the SCOTUS:

            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/case.html

          • Buford

            There’s a distinction here, however. The Seeger ruling says that objectors do not have to belong to a recognized religion in order to have these sincerely-held, anti-war beliefs, but these objectors were not seeking the ability to infringe upon the civil rights of other people. If pro-RFRA people want to claim that their religion requires them to sidestep anti-discrimination laws, they should have to prove that to be true. It can’t simply be a ‘sincerely-held belief’ if it impacts others so significantly.

          • j.martindale

            That is not the only factor differentiating the decisions. With the conscientious objector issue, prior to that decision, the Plaintiffs in the case had only two options: defy the law or defy their deeply held religious beliefs. What the court did was provide a third option: refuse to serve in the military in a combat capacity, but serve in non-combat roles. The Court looked for a reasonable accommodation to religious beliefs.

            With the bakery case, the Plaintiffs do not face a crisis where they must comply with the law or face being in violation of the law. They have the reasonable alternative to abiding by the law and at the same time abiding by their faith. The difference between the cases is that the so-called religious Bakers are not forced to make wedding cakes. If they refrain from making wedding cakes, they can abide by the law. In the cases of owners of venues, if they don’t want to abide by anti-discrimination laws regarding same sex couples, they can refrain from using their properties for marriage ceremonies. Photographers do not need to do wedding photos. So accommodations already exist.

            I pointed out this act not because it justifies the religious freedom people in their discrimination, but because it defines a SCOTUS opinion on what is a deeply held religious belief.

        • bambinoitaliano

          If he has a successful business to run in the first place, he would not have the time to feel butt hurt on irrelevant issue.

          • Buford

            Well, he’s just lucky that he was able to shop around and find a religion that validated his preexisting bigotry against others.

          • DN

            Building a bit on what you just said…

            To those who say religion is not a choice: look at the First Daughter.

          • Buford

            Religion is certainly a choice, and I’ve never heard anyone make a serious argument saying otherwise.

            I have, however, heard many idiotic right-wing nutters suggest that being gay is a choice whereas foreigners are born Jewish or Muslim.

          • Steverino

            Whenever some doofus tries to argue against constitutional rights and legal protection for gays “because it is a choice,” just dismiss the argument by replying “yeah, just like religion and speech.”

          • bambinoitaliano

            Then he should follow his true calling of selling slob on a bucket a la Jim Baker and not operating a bakery.

        • Steverino

          People like this may fancy themselves as heroes, but are really stupid businesspeople.

      • DN

        That’s what happened to Aaron and Melissa Klein. Well before they were fined by the State of Oregon, they had to shutter their business and bake from their home kitchen.

        People had found out how much of a pair of shitheads they were and decided to give their custom to others.

        So if we lose this case (and I hate to say, I think we will), I’ll only be OK with it under the proviso that every business that doesn’t want our money has to put a sticker in their window or on their front door, saying, “Faggots get out.” And yes, it has to say “faggots.” Make them own their hatred.

        • fuow

          I agree. Something like a very large poster at the front of the business saying 20:13 would do quite nicely.
          Or a basket of pink triangles at the front door.
          Seriously.
          And, yes – we are almost certainly to become one of the two groups against whom it is legal to discriminate on a religious basis in this country. The other group being transgender/intersex people.
          Thanks all you asswipes who didn’t vote or voted ‘Green’. You bear the guilt for this.

        • Buford

          That’s how Texas navigated the gun carry issue. If a local business doesn’t want people carrying guns into their shops, they have to post these large, VERY specifically-defined signs in the front windows or doors to notify the public that it’s illegal to carry guns inside. If the signs are altered (to make them less ugly) and don’t meet the criteria set forth in the statute, they are not legally binding.

          The idea here is to shame the business. The gun-nuzzling GOP state officials wanted to make it as distasteful as possible for a business to tell a righteous gun carrier that his gun is not welcome on their premises.

          Google ‘TEXAS 30.06 and 30.07 GUN SIGNS’ for details.

          • DN

            Funny you mention that because I seem to remember all the bars in Arizona suddenly having “No Guns” signs when I lived there… Must’ve been the same thing

          • Buford

            In Texas, bars are a different situation. Any business which receives 51% or more of revenue from alcohol sales is automatically a gun-free zone. However, they do need to post a sign in the window which designates them as officially a 51% establishment.

            The 30.06 and 30.07 signs are for other businesses… basically, they were intended to be big, obtrusive ‘We’re Not Pro-Gun’ signs.

        • BobSF_94117

          The Oregon case is very peculiar. OR has (to my mind) ridiculous penalties. They were designed to reign in big corporations, not mom and pop businesses. The OR officials in charge of fining went waaaaay overboard* and provided the right wing with a true martyr case.

          * not sure they had much choice

          • Acronym Jim

            As I stated above, the large fine included punitive damages after the Kleins doxxed the lesbian couple by posting their personal information online.

          • BobSF_94117

            It’s still an exorbitant fine and just made them real “martyrs”.

          • Acronym Jim

            For that, I blame media reporting, not the court. The couple suffered real damages in the form of harassment from “good, moral” christianists.

        • Acronym Jim

          And the reason the fine was so large, wasn’t because they refused service to a lesbian couple, but because they doxxed the couple by posting their personal information on Facebook.

      • Buford

        Yep… and if the SCOTUS blows this decision by legalizing discrimination under the cover of ‘religion’, then the free market will likely act as the safety net. I’d expect smartphone apps which gather social feedback to keep track of businesses which discriminate so that they can be avoided. If organized well, that could be powerful.

        • DN

          aha! Now that’s good thinking.

          Also, if it’s OK to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation, how is it not OK to discriminate against someone for their race?

          Edited to add:

          This was part of the ruling that led to Loving v. Virginia. A *judge* wrote this:

          “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage.”

          • fuow

            That’s on the Robert’s Court’s next docket….

      • BobSF_94117

        Not sure where you heard that his business was suffering. At first, at least, people were going out of their way to buy from him, even driving up from that hotbed of conservative Protestantism, Colorado Springs.

  • BobSF_94117

    This is not about a BAKER. This is about a bakery.

    Why we accept and use the terminology of the other side’s argument, I do not know.

    • Sam_Handwich

      That is a really good point.

      • SarahWJarrell

        Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !hs72d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyTeamUpdateWorkFromHome/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!hs72l..,…

    • another_steve

      Seems to me that’s significant only in so far as it defines just who or what is doing the discriminating here. Is it an individual (the baker) or a business entity (the bakery)? Not a lawyer here but I suppose the nature of the licensing determines that. Is the baker/owner licensed to transact in the public square or is it the bakery itself? Either way, of course, it’s discrimination.

      No business licensed to transact in the public square should be allowed to discriminate. If you’re a bakery and you want to decide for yourself who your customers will be, you need to move to Iran or to a cave somewhere.

      • DN

        Or they can get a job at a church. I mean, ffs, it’s in *their* holy book to render unto Caesar, bla bla bla.

        Why can’t they live up to the standards they impose on others?

        • Mark

          Religion, they think, gives them a license to discriminate.

          • Todd20036

            We will soon find out if that statement is correct.

          • Mark

            Part of me is terrified…..

          • Jack

            If the decision goes agains them, I mean WHEN the decision goes against them, they will simply say it was wrongly decided.

            Given that the precedent was written by Scalia, that he was joined by Rehnquist and Kennedy (plus O’Connor, White and Stevens), that it was opposed by Marshall, Brennan, and Blackmun, it SHOULD be seen as a conservative decision.

            In 2016, Roberts and Scalia agreed in 88% of the cases, Thomas and Scalia agreed in 88 of the cases. Alito and Scalia agree in 94% of the cases and Kennedy and Scalia agreed in 82% of the cases. (In fairness, the percents were lower the year before). And Gorsuch is supposed to be the new Scalia.

          • scottrose

            Whore-suck in his stolen seat is even worse than Scalia.

          • GayOldLady

            It always has and they’re terrified of losing that.

          • Dee Frost

            The bible is full of discrimination. Incest was ok, no other way for the population to grow back then, blacks were considered Lesser than whites in the bible, Really the bible is full of dangerous bullshit,

        • DumbHairyApe

          Because, THEY aren’t really interested in following the actions and attitudes of Jesus. They’re REALLY just interested in making sure that YOU do.
          That’s the way it’s pretty much always been. Those in power think they’re above the law, be it a spiritual law or a civil one. From plantation owners to presidents. The laws are there to keep the rest of us in order and them in power.

          • another_steve

            “The laws are there to keep the rest of us in order and them in power.”

            I think that’s exactly it, DHA. Perhaps the best illustration of it is traditional Judeo-Christian orthodoxy regarding women. It’s all about men (the authors of their holy books) wanting to control and subjugate women. Wanting to “keep them in their place.”

            When you have your deity proclaim the rules, it can be a very effective tool.

          • Dee Frost

            If one buys into the bible Cult that is just what it was for, keep people in line and for fuck sakes never think for themselves as that is what Cults are about,

        • Scotty Pressley

          Tell that to the fag, who owns the Coffee shop in Washington.

      • BobSF_94117

        He owns a business. He is not a business entity. The bakery is a corporate entity. Humans have religion. Businesses do not.

        Individuals have, arguably, the right to refuse to perform certain tasks at work. It is up to the business to find a way to accommodate workers and customers.

        • JohnJay

          But I thought with the Citizens United ruling, that businesses are people, too.

          • BobSF_94117

            You’re thinking of Hobby Lobby, not Citizens United.

            And I hope you’re wrong. Though we shall see…

          • DN

            Was it not the case that Hobby Lobby was meant to apply only to Hobby Lobby and not any other cases? IE: it didn’t sent precedent? I hope one of the lawyers around here sees this question because I remember laughing when I heard that at the time.

          • BobSF_94117

            You’re thinking of Bush v. Gore, America’s first but-it-doesn’t-apply-in-any-other-case legal decision. Hobby Lobby applied/applies to many other “closely held” corporate entities, though no one knows what “closely held” means.

          • j.martindale

            No, it applied elsewhere, but it said in the opinion that it was limited in scope largely to abortion.

          • lenvus

            You would hope that ruling would apply here as well — at least to assure the Baker(y) can’t use his/its values to deny services to a segment of the population. As to whether a corporation is defined as a person, I know that in my state — Arizona — it is. I would suspect corporations are similarly consisted “persons” in other states as well.

            (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1-215, paragraph 28: “‘Person’ includes a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association or society, as well as a natural person. When the word ‘person’ is used to designate the party whose property may be the subject of a criminal or public offense, the term includes the United States, this state, or any territory, state or country, or any political subdivision of this state that may lawfully own any property, or a public or private corporation, or partnership or association. When the word ‘person’ is used to designate the violator or offender of any law, it includes corporation, partnership or any association of persons.”)

          • Jack

            Corporations are legal persons. In 1978, the court wrote “In cases where corporate speech has been denied the shelter of the First Amendment, there is no suggestion that the reason was because a corporation, rather than an individual or association, was involved.”

            First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 
435 U.S. 765

        • another_steve

          “Humans have religion. Businesses do not.”

          Legally, here, that may be a critical factor in the case.

          Way above my understanding of the law here, though.

        • Jack

          That’s not 100% true, on the federal level, thanks to the Hobby Lobby decision.

      • GayOldLady

        The merchant has the right to decide what to sell, but not who to sell it to. I think the only exception to that would be if a customer was being abusive or behaving unlawfully. At that point the merchant could throw them out. Since we’re (LGBT) not covered by title VII, I’m really anxious to see the decision in this because if they side with the merchant then it will open the door to people attempting to challenge Title VII using their bible, or their religious dogma, doctrine.

        • Steverino

          And this exposes the flaw in title VII and how anti-discrimination law has evolved in this country. The laundry list of classes of people it is illegal to discriminate against inherently implies that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against classes not specifically enumerated, rather than acknowledge that ALL forms of discrimination regardless of class is harmful, and should be sanctioned. How is it that discrimination because of race, sex, religion, etc. is obviously harmful, but discrimination because of sexual orientation is not?

          And don’t get me started on my soapbox that discrimination on account of religion is in itself a form of religious discrimination (in reverse).

          • GayOldLady

            I totally agree. Still, I remember that in 1964 that blacks and others of color and Women were seriously discriminated against in Employment, Housing, Education. At the time Title VII seemed to be sufficient, probably because most LGBT were in the closet. Disability was added later with the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990. You probably remember when classified ads in the newspaper were separated in to jobs for men and jobs for women. If they weren’t at the bottom of the ad it would say “no women need apply” or “no negro need apply”. The first time I tried to borrow money from a bank was a nightmare and I had a decent job at the time. If not for a female Asst to the VP, I don’t think I would have gotten the loan. And getting into a Law School, Med School or an Engineering School if you were a woman required grades that were exceptional. Very few women went to college in 1964 unless it was to become a teacher or a nurse. Most other endeavors were closed to women, unless they came from money or were exceptional students. Trying to get into most colleges if you were black was impossible, even if you were brilliant. Those were terrible days. I remind myself often that I’ve lived through worse times.

          • Jack

            One of my female classmates and I both asked the same professor for recommendations for grad school, in 1970. He turned her down. Because she’d marry, get pregnant, and quit.

            She got into Johns Hopkins. Started in Sept, 1970. She married in Oct, 1971. Got her PhD in three years. Got a teaching position at Bu. Moved. Had a child at the beginning of summer break of 1975. She retired a few years ago.

          • Tom P

            See! See! He was right! She *is*a quitter! (/s)

          • Jack

            I’m not serving people in Nazi regalia, those wearing or carrying something known to support racism/homophobia/ant-Semitism or those known to support r/h/a-S.

        • Jack

          We’re also not covered by Title II, which covers public accommodations.

      • Jack

        The suit is against the bakery, which is a corporation, AND the owner.

        I *am* a lawyer and I have to ask, what do you mean when you say “No business licensed to transact in the public square should be allowed to discriminate”? What do you mean by “discriminate”? Because I’ll say flat out that if I owned a public accommodation and someone came in with nazi stuff (vague on purpose) or a Confederate battle flag, I’d ask them to leave.

        And what about the owner of Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop?

        • another_steve

          Jack, respectfully, if those Nazis or Confederacy lovers came into your public accommodation peacefully – without intent or action designed to stir up trouble or violence – and you denied them service solely because you don’t like those sort of people, I’d join the ACLU and sue the living daylights out of you.

          • Jack

            You have no standing to sue. Nor does the ACLU.

            You don’t have to pretend respect when you aren’t feeling any.

            You’ve also assumed that my refusal would be based on “I don’t like your sort.”

            Now, can I get an answer to my questions?

          • another_steve

            “No business licensed to transact in the public square should be allowed to discriminate”? What do you mean by “discriminate”?

            I mean the refusal to serve certain segments of the public simply because you don’t like them. You know, Jack – refusing to serve an LGBT customer or a woman wearing traditional Muslim garb.

            I don’t have to “pretend respect” for people I don’t like, but as a merchant in a civilized society I have to serve them – provided they aren’t disrupting my business operations.

            You’re a lawyer, Jack, and you don’t grok this?

          • Jack

            First things first — you don’t have to pretend respect for ME or what I said. You’re not doing a very good job of it, anyway.

            Next, we DON’T have the right to refuse any and all segments of the population simply because we don’t like them. I never said we did. I thought I was clear that my refusal of a Nazi or a KKK member would not be “simply because” I don’t like them.

            Wait — “providing they aren’t disrupting my business operation.” So you DO recognize a right to refuse!

            More important to me, though, I want to know how you would carry out your threat to sue the living daylights out of me (it’s actually BEAT the living daylights out of someone or sue the pants off), when YOU have no standing and there is no legal basis? I also want to know what compels me to serve someone who belongs to a group that advocates against my well-being?

      • Blake Paine

        The point is if that particular individual doesn’t want to decorate the cake then someone else can, it is the business with the obligation not any particular employee. That shoots the whole ‘speech’ and ‘religion’ arguments out the water.

        • another_steve

          Well said.

          Actually, the closet libertarian in me says, “Let businesses discriminate and let the marketplace adjudicate it.” So, if Business A discriminates, people protest day and night in front of it with signs that read “Business B down the street doesn’t discriminate.” Business A soon starts losing money and/or goes out of business.

          Intellectually appealing but unworkable, I fear.

          • Blake Paine

            Yes and sort of against the whole recognition of civil rights thing.

            Regardless the people of Colorado have recognized civil rights and so ability to buy something publicly offered by creed, sexes or sexual orientation is illegal.

            Maybe they should move to Texas?

    • The Sentinel

      Same thing with “gay marriage”. It’s simply “marriage”.

      • another_steve

        Sing it Louise.

        Not so long ago, even boyfriend Joe here was referring to it as “gay marriage.” Thank goodness, that seems to have stopped.

      • Acronym Jim

        And we weren’t fighting for sam-sex marriage, we fought for marriage equality.

    • Todd20036

      Actually, it’s about whether or not someone’s butthurt views about LBGTs warrants more rights than the basic civil rights of LBGTs.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      “Why we accept and use the terminology of the other side’s argument, I do not know.”

      Lazy reporters?

      • Steverino

        The right-wing is very adept at controlling the narrative, and unfortunately is often responded to in kind, that is, according to their narrative.

    • peacfulseas inWA

      “Why we accept and use the terminology of the other side’s argument” BobSF_94117

      This was always a pet peeve of mine during the battle for Marriage rights. We’ve not yet reached Marriage Equality. It was never a battle for gay marriage,that was what domestic partnerships and civil unions with their many of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage but not all represented.
      Language matters

  • Gay Fordham Prep Grad

    So they are going to hear the arguments in early December and wait until the end of June to release the decision? Such drama queens.

    • greenmanTN

      To give Kennedy time to skedaddle?

    • bambinoitaliano

      Or wait for one of them librel judge to croak.

      • DN

        I’m not kidding when I say that is one of my greatest fears.

  • BearEyes

    Jim Crow was wrong then
    Pink Crow is wrong now

  • shellback

    Has the SC made a determination as to what constitutes a religion? My religion supercedes many laws and accepted “norms.”

    • Silver Badger

      I have a vague memory from MANY years back that we tried the gay religion ploy and were laughed out of court.

      • shellback

        I didn’t say gay.

        • Silver Badger

          No, you didn’t. I did.

      • Steverino

        Well, they think we need “reparative therapy” (Pence certainly supports this notion), so perhaps we should be protected against discrimination under the ADA…

    • Natty Enquirer

      This whole religious freedom business stems from a SCOTUS decision years ago that generally put the law above religion. (I know, imagine that.) So Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which everyone thought was going to help the Indians take peyote without the DEA coming down on them. Then the Christian Right saw the smoke signals and started pushing more religious freedom laws with an eye toward today’s end game.

    • DN

      Maybe not, but Jeff Sessions’ DOJ wrote on Friday:

      “RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.”

      So, it seems to me I can carry that memo around while politely but firmly telling people that: yes, my colander is religious headgear, and no, I won’t remove it.

      • Vista-Cruiser

        In theory, yes. But in practice, this will only apply to evangelical Christians.

    • fuow

      Well, for Gorsuch and three conservatives it’s:
      Flip a coin. Heads, religious nuts win,
      Tails: Gays lose.
      Justice Kennedy is, once again, yet again our sole hope on the conservative side.

      • BobSF_94117

        One hopes, perhaps futilely, that some others on the Court can see how badly these “religious freedom” rulings will be abused, to the detriment of other minorities.

        • Vista-Cruiser

          To Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch, abusing other minorities is a GOOD thing.

      • Statistics Palin

        This gay will be a Unitarian Universalist to force the court to decide whose religion counts. By that time, the Catholics should be betting bloody diarrhea because they know that the Baptists don’t consider Catholics Christian.

    • Hue-Man

      Countries can’t agree on Scientology.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country

  • PickyPecker

    Somewhat OT: Yesterday, I had a customer and his wife in my business. They were checking out with me (spending $200 on pottery) and conversation on his part turned to money and how his insurance premiums went from $400/mo to $1400/mo after the ‘African American’ was in office. Went on to complain about people getting things for ‘free’ and how they should be working…yadda, yadda. Same-old, same-old.
    I listened and really didn’t add much to the conversation as I quietly took his credit card and ran it through.
    While I detested everything he was saying, I was not about to turn away his money. I performed my business tasks and made the sale and watched him walk away.
    This is what operating a business is about.
    I could have lit into him and lost the sale.

    • Silver Badger

      Funny thing is, he still had $200.00 to spend on pottery.

      • PickyPecker

        True, that. I’m certain I could have given him an informed earful but what would have been the point? Would I have changed his mind?

        • Silver Badger

          Could you have instituted an “asshole” surcharge?

          • PickyPecker

            Always, always tempting with these types. However, I run a clean business. Oh, he even tried to offer me cash to get around paying sales tax!

          • Karl Dubhe

            Huh? I almost always use cash; Luddite that I am.

            I’ve never even considered that a business would do that. Even when working retail… How dumb wa… Oh, wait. You said that in the OP. 🙂

          • bambinoitaliano

            That is an old trick of asking for a discount. Business always advertised no sales tax event. They just deduct the equivalent %. The big brother always get his levy 😛

          • Todd20036

            Keep in mind, one of the benefits of taking his money is that he is funding your next trip to a gay bar

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Why, did he have a resale license? The manner of payment does not affect whether the sale is subject to sales tax

          • jerry

            I’ve been known to institute the “asshole” surcharge, but my fees (accounting and taxes) are more subjective than a retail sale.
            And yesterday, I really had to hold my tongue: I briefly went looking through the vendors at a street fair, and there was an NRA booth raffling off guns, from reproduction flintlocks to an AK-47. I politely declined and got the hell out of there.

        • Dreaming Vertebrate

          Take his money and smile all the way to the bank!
          Good job, Picky!

        • bambinoitaliano

          If business decide to set a guidelines and follow through on how a customer should behave in their establishment, it’s not going to find a lot of customers patronizing.

          • cheakamus

            Exactly. Several of the gay bars here have signs very prominently displayed at their entrances saying No Homophobes, Racists, etc., etc. They have no lack of clientele. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Colorado baker, I think businesses seeking to discriminate according to “sincerely held religious beliefs” should be REQUIRED to post signs to that effect, and then let the chips fall where they may.

          • Steverino

            They should post signs, but that would spoil their fun of humiliating us and turning us away.

          • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

            Then someone should post signs for them…

    • Natty Enquirer

      So the moral of the story is worship the dollar above all?

      In fact, shopkeepers have every right to deny a sale if they don’t like the political attitude of a customer, whether it seems prudent or not. This is not about business prudence. This case is about denying service because of religion-based animus in violation of the law.

      • PickyPecker

        Point taken, and as I said…..somewhat OT.
        When your livelihood depends on the public, you tend to watch your tongue.
        Given the very small area in which I operate, my customer base is also small.
        Had he things to say about LGBT topics, I would have exercised my right to refuse him products/services and escorted him out.

        • Joe in PA

          And you KNOW that was coming next. I get so tired of the health-care/insurance rates going up because of Ocare. When I turned 55 my rates DOUBLED. Nothing to do with Ocare. And I wonder if these idiots know anything about what was actually in their cheap-ass insurance policy? And, oh, guess what schmucks, your rates likely won’t go down even if Ocare goes away.

          • PickyPecker

            The transaction was a case of ‘make the sale and move them out quickly.’ I’ve got to have somewhat of a thick skin living in deep red country. Keep the conversation as short as possible with these types.
            Not sure if they are looking for kindred souls with whom they can impotently bitch or what. I’m certain they can tell I am not on board with what they go on about. However, while I am quite opposite of what they are, I need to eat! 🙂

          • Dreaming Vertebrate

            And so do your fur babies – and feather babies!

        • djcoastermark

          At least you get the last laugh – you got his money.

      • bambinoitaliano

        Would you post a list at the window of what kind of customers are not welcome to the establishment? I can’t see your employees on top of providing the product and service they have to be the moral police watching what the customers have to say so as to not violate the list of do’s and don’t s.

        • canoebum

          Hey, it works in Iran.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        “shopkeepers have every right to deny a sale if they don’t like the
        political attitude of a customer, whether it seems prudent or not.”

        In fact, isn’t this what Masterpiece Cakeshop is about? Shopkeepers can deny a sale so long as they do not do so for an illegal reason (e.g., a customer’s race, religion, national origin, etc.). The question here is, whether it is illegal to discriminate against LGBT customers–for that reason alone–when Colorado’s public accommodations law says, “That is illegal!” (according to the Colorado Supreme Court’s determination, which the U.S. Supreme Court may not legitimately disturb on certiorari).

        The shopkeepers are looking to switch the inquiry away from the customers’ attribute(s) to their own absurd religious beliefs (surprise!) for a so-called “First Amendment” defense to a validly-enacted ordinance of general applicability (Smith)–which will almost certainly fail (even given the current composition of the Court).

        Imagine the KKK bringing suit to prevent African-Americans from entering their ranks; this case is not far off (“but my religion makes me discriminate against ‘x'”!)

        • clay

          Except they haven’t claimed that it was for politics, but for religious opposition.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Yes, true. ‘Religious opposition’ might be judged by the same set of rules that apply to political speech, in which case the judgment will depend on whether five old white men (including Thomas, J.)–who have probably not experienced much in the way of discrimination–think that “preventing discrimination” is a “compelling” state interest, and whether Colorado’s Public Accommodations statute is “narrowly-tailored” enough to meet that interest. (Hint: the correct answer to both these questions should be a resounding, “yes!”)

            However, a current majority of the Supremes have indicated they might want to dump Justice Brennan’s “tiers of scrutiny” into the dustbin of forensic/legal history–at least where we gays and lesbians are concerned. (See, e.g., Windsor v. U.S. (2013) 570 U.S. ___ (concluding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of “Due Process of Law” AND “Equal Protection of the Laws,” but without any legal analysis or discussion regarding the latter). Although tossing the “tiers of scrutiny” approach is not ideologically or theoretically offensive GENERALLY SPEAKING, erasing almost half-a-century of legal precedent would almost certainly see us coming out the other side with a raw deal–and NOT the good kind….

    • Gay Fordham Prep Grad

      Well, at least he acknowledged that Obama is an American. That’s progress with those people.

      • Steverino

        Either that, or he knows it is impolite to use the N-word in public.

    • bambinoitaliano

      It’s a fine distinction in that he is the customer who is entitled to have a personal opinion. To a point. As in not physically and verbally assaulting the employees in a work place. Whereas, you represents the company, any personal opinion should be relating to the service and product to complete the transaction. Sometimes it’s easier said than done when some customers came with their own baggages. One would need to have a great diplomatic skill to avoid confrontation with an asshat customer.

    • Buford

      Taking his money = smart business

      Telling him to GFH and don’t come back = hero with a clean conscience

    • GayOldLady

      I would have done the exact same thing.

    • P.J. Huff

      I don’t blame you one bit, deciding between your conscience and putting food on the table is impossible.

      • Steverino

        Picking one’s battles, and all that.

    • Skokieguy [Larry]

      I hope you didn’t let them pet your puppy! Take their money, but no special perks.

  • greenmanTN

    There is no way this should make it past the SCOTUS. But if it (god forbid) does, EVERY business that plans to discriminate should have to have clear obvious signage stating that so that the public can make an informed decision on whether to do business there. None of this we’ll let you buy cookies but if you ask for a cake… SURPRISE! bullshit.

    • Buford

      I’d also expect LOTS of progressive-minded businesses to refuse service to self-identifying Christians, divorcees, Bible-quoters, etc… to help bring the point home. It would be legal to claim, without evidence, that ‘my faith forbids me to do business with sinners’ before declaring that some arbitrary action or attribute is a sin.

      • Danieruw

        According to that new Justice Dept directive, the govt can’t even question the faith. They have to take it at face value.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          That is not new–that is old IRS doctrine, and not surprising in the least.

  • Atomicrob

    And can a lunch counter in a department store refuse to serve blacks? What’s the difference?

    • Menergy

      2 small words missing in the civil rights protected classes language: sexual orientation .

      • BobSF_94117

        Any decision in favor of “religious freedom” will gut the Civil Rights Act. This is not about sexual orientation.

        • Scotty Pressley

          If it’s not about sexual orientation, then there is no issue in the Civil Rights Act. But these are small mom-and-pop shops being invaded and attacked by anti-Christian imperialist liberals. These Christians will always sacrifice everything they have to God before bowing down to the LGBTQ idols of Sodom and Gomorrah.

          But conservatives will step up and help their persecuted brothers and sisters, who lose their businesses and money at the hands of Satan’s allies in the Democratic Party and imperialist LGBTQ America.

          • BobSF_94117

            If you’re finished, I could fetch you a tissue…

          • Scotty Pressley

            No tears here, liberal pig. Save your tissue from the bleeding you get from being f ucked in the a ss.

          • BobSF_94117

            Think about that a lot, don’t you.

      • Todd20036

        Cannot serve blacks. Against my religion.
        Cannot serve women who aren’t in the company of their husband. Against my religion.
        Cannot serve LBGT. Against my religion.
        Cannot serve non christians. Against my religion.
        Cannot serve war vets, the disabled, non-whites, liberals….. Against my religion.

        Businesses in the cities won’t pull that shit, but in the rural areas, it becomes Sharia law.

        And all that will happen if SCOTUS chooses wrong.

      • Atomicrob

        True, however the principle is nonetheless same . . . Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodations — places like bakeries, movie theatres, restaurants, hospitals, and other establishments open to the public — based on sexual orientation, among other protected classes. The Colorado courts, interpreting this straightforward law, held that the bakery’s refusal to serve the couple constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation and that there is no constitutional right to discriminate that supersedes this protection.

        • Scotty Pressley

          Colorado is a liberal pig blue state just like New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington where small mom-and-pop shops have been invaded and then publicly attacked by self-victimizing homosexual imperialists. Sexual orientation isn’t a choice, but being married homosexually is. Because a homosexual made a choice, so should the business owners based on that choice. It’s about the choice of controversial gay marriage, not the protected status of sexual orientation.

  • DN

    I know I’m a pessimist, but I don’t think we’re going to win this one.

    Thanks to people like this jag, and the Kim Davises of the world, I was terrified of being treated like this in every. single. interaction regarding our wedding. Buying rings, going to city hall, meeting the officiant. All of it. Turns out everyone was charming and awesome. But assholes like Jack Phillips had me terrified every step of the way.

    • greenmanTN

      I hope you’re wrong, and believe you are with the court as it stands, but I’m really sorry you felt that fear during what should have been a joyous process and understand why you felt that way.

    • j.martindale

      I disagree. Here is why. If the Court says religious principles can supercede law, they will be adjudicating what constitute religious principles forever. It undermines law, and that is their business. If they say that reasonable accommodations be made for the religious, they will be in the business FOREVER of determining what is reasonable. Is it reasonable, for instance, to permit religious people to discriminate against gays? There is no simple way to permit religious beliefs to trump the law without opening a veritable Pandora’s box of additional court decisions.

      • DN

        I completely agree with you – the government has no business deciding what is and isn’t a sincere religious belief (also see my comment below – Jeff Sessions agrees with us too!). On the other hand, in the 90s, the supreme court said that allowing religious practice to supersede law in the case of Native Americans using peyote as part of their ceremonies would “in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

        And then 25ish years later, the supreme court ignored that by saying “yeah it’s cool for Hobby Lobby to overrule law.”

        I lost a lot of respect for the supreme court after Hobby Lobby, and I worry that they’re going to fuck this up.

        • canoebum

          The State has the right to regulate commerce. When you open a business, you need a license, which comes with rules attached. You accept those rules when you apply and pay your fee. Case closed.

        • j.martindale

          See what Alito said above. That is heartening. Also, remember that if they go in the direction of the fundamentalists, they are going to have to contradict a lot of established law. Remember, they decided that despite the strongly held religious beliefs of Mormons, people are not entitled to polygamous marriages. So there will be conservatives who are going to have to look at this case and decide if they are willing to re-adjudicate all kinds of other potential religious exemptions to the law.

          • DN

            I really hope you’re right. And your reasoning is (not a lawyer here) correct. I’m just so used to America sucking religion’s dick…

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Actually Smith v. Employment Division (the Oregon peyote case) was about whether the peyote-using-Native -American could be barred from receiving government benefits (unemployment), after being fired for “illegal drug use” (when using peyote as a sacrament in the Native American Church). The Court said, “yep” in a totally-unpersuasive opinion.

          On the other hand, no one was fired here. A government-paid benefit is not at issue. And the Baker looks more and more like the Native American in that case–who lost, even though the Court found there was a valid right to use peyote religiously!

      • The Sentinel

        Gorsuch disagrees with you.

        • j.martindale

          Gorsuch took Scalia’s seat. No big difference. But keep in mind that even the other most conservative voice on the Court, Alito, explicitly said in the Hobby Lobby decision that religious beliefs of a closely held corporations cannot be the basis for illegal discrimination:

          “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito asserted. “Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”

          • Phillip in L.A.

            “Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”

            Ding!

          • j.martindale

            And it will not be difficult to show that this is a cloak for illegal discrimination. The attorney opposing the Bakery will need only ask: “Is divorce condemned by your religion? Do you inquire of purchasers of your wedding cakes if they are divorced, and then refuse to sell them cakes if they are? Or are you selective in which religious beliefs control your bake sales?”

          • Phillip in L.A.

            (1) Why is the discrimination “illegal” in the present case? Doesn’t that position “assume away” one of the most important questions to be answered by this case?

            (2) Is it a corollary of ‘not inquiring into the sincerity of “sincerely-held religious beliefs,”‘ that such questions as you mentioned (about divorce, etc.), become irrelevant?

            (3) Why is the Bakery’s apparent animus important in this case? In Windsor, wasn’t the issue whether the Legislature’s animus toward a disfavored class had tainted the legislative enactment, thus making it invalid as applied to lesbians and gay folks? Is the same issue raised here?

            (4) Is there a dispute about any relevant, material facts in this case? Or does the case turn on a “pure question of law”?

          • j.martindale

            1. It is illegal in the first case, where the Plaintiff claims he is not subject to prosecution under the laws of the state or municipality prohibiting discrimination because his deeply held religious beliefs demand that he not participate in a SSM and supersede the law.. There is not a challenge by the Plaintiff that the state law is unconstitutional, merely that it cannot be enforced when challenged on the vasis of religious objections.
            2. I am not exactly sure what you are saying.
            3. Animus is important because Alito, in the the Hobby Lobby decision, explicitly said that deeply held religious beliefs such as are permitted by that ruling cannot merely be pretexts for discrimination. If it can be demonstrated that hostility toward a minority is the motive rather than religious strictures, Hobby Lobby cannot be enforced. And there is nothing but animosity toward gays which operates here.

            4. No dispute other than, perhaps, the claim of the plaintiff that cake making is a form of free speech, I would think.

      • Treant

        Agreed, but I think Kennedy might just go the way of “religious freedom” (“persecute whoever you want”) on this.

        It’ll be interesting to see the arguments that follow when the reverse happens and people like me refuse to serve the openly religious because it violates my beliefs. Kennedy, if still alive, is going to have to twist that argument to make sure I can’t do that.

        In which case I simply become “too busy to help, so sorry.”

      • Ross

        The Bible states that a parent can stone their teenager to death if the teen swears at them.

        But you can’t do this in America because it’s against the law.

        If the Supreme Court rules that religious beliefs can supersede law, then teens across the land better watch their mouths.

        And the Bible is full of stupid shit.

        The US Constitution also clearly states a separation between Church and State. And for good reason.

        • jerry

          Part of the problem is that the US Constitution doesn’t clearly state “separation between Church and State”…but the rulings and interpretations based upon the Federalist Papers clearly do. So the “literalists” have always used this line of attack to push their religions.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        “Reasonable accommodations” is statutory language–from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Afaik, it does not apply to any form of constitutional adjudication currently practised by the U,S,S SUpreme COurt (leaving the erros, because I cannot stand Disqus any longer

        • j.martindale

          I understand. And I chose that language not because it is in the lexicon of SCOTUS decisions, but because it has the same effect as, say the SCOTUS decision to permit conscientious objectors to avoid military service on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs. In those instances, the court held alternative service would be acceptable and reasonable.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Good point! I haven’t looked at that case in a long time–was the conscientious objector language part of the statute to begin with, or was that a ‘judicially-crafted remedy’ that allowed the Court in that case to uphold an otherwise infirm statute?

  • j.martindale

    Here is a better Baker:

    https://youtu.be/8SGAcP7Zh6U

    • Christopher
      • Dreaming Vertebrate

        Wow! Beautiful.

      • Acronym Jim

        The biggest indicator of just how good she is, is the audience’s complete silence through the entire song.

        Or is it just American audiences who feel they need to screech, scream and applaud every time a singer hits a high note?

        • clay

          I went to a dance performance choreographed to Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme” last month. It included an introduction and a very still second movement devoid of sound. And the audience sat there silently, enraptured, for seven minutes of watching the dancers turn their heads.

          But we were probably all Gays and Jews.

  • Tomcat

    I am pissed off how the trump admin and republicans pointed SCOTUS in the direction they want them to rule.

    • Todd20036

      Actually, I’m pissed at all the non Clinton voters that enabled this change, too

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Why? That is the sole purpose of the Solicitor General’s Office–to argue for the Government’s point-of-view in cases pending before the Supreme Court. When there is a change in Administration, there is often a change in policy; the Solicitor-General is a hired gun (as are all lawyers).

      There are plenty of amicus briefs from other sources pointing the Supremes to the CORRECT direction of this case.

  • fuow

    So, a big ‘fuck you’ to all the queers* who either stayed home or voted ‘Green’ in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.** By not voting, you caused this peril to our civil rights.

    *Don’t you dare bitch at me for calling out my own people. I’ve had it up to here with the PC bullshit on ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘not speaking for those whose experience one cannot share’ idiots. Damn straight I’m angry at my fellow queers for letting Trump win. Also furious with the cis-gendered heterosexuals who voted ‘Green’ or stayed home to ‘teach’ us a lesson. But most of all at those of us who know better.
    **Trump won by only 80,00 votes. Before you write that all the queers in the world couldn’t make up that difference, do some fundamental research. Even if you want to pretend we’re only 3% of the population, had all of us voted for Hillary, this wouldn’t have happened.

    • Michael

      Or you could say ‘fuck you’ to those who placed their bets on a losing horse. Let’s just say if you’re at a horse track and you want one of the horses to lose. Well only an idiot would place their bet on the one of the two remaining horses that was shown to run slower than the other and only an asshole would blame the ones who knew the other horse was a safer bet.

      • canoebum

        Or, if you want to run in a Democratic Party Presidential Primary, try joining the Democratic Party first. Otherwise, run as a third party candidate or independent. All the Bernie people bitching about how unfair the Democratic Party was to them, yet their candidate couldn’t bring himself to sign on the dotted line. Take the party money, sure. Bitch about not getting enough party money? Sure. But, join? No.

      • KnownDonorDad

        Except there was another round where people could pout that their horse didn’t make the first round, or support the horse that wouldn’t enable anti-LGBT, anti-science, pro-religious fundamentalism, etc. forces. I just hope it was worth it for you.

  • vorpal 😼

    They’ve in the past tried to argue that it’s an original work of “artistic expression” and thus they should be able to refuse to create it and it is not an act of discrimination.

    However, they would create the exact same work of “artistic expression” for a heterosexual company and sell it to them, so it is clearly discrimination.

    • Treant

      They’d really better watch that, because if anti-discrimination laws can be snapped by “artistic expression,” then anybody who dabs a bit of glitter on something can then refuse to sell it to them.

      For that matter, good luck getting me to sell them soap. 🙂 Unlike them, I created this recipe from scratch and do all the design, of course.

      • greenmanTN

        Reserve all the Pumpkin Spice soap just for them!

        (I am totally playing, have no feelings one way or the other about PS!)

        • Treant

          It’s really shaping up quite well and the spice is dominant while the pumpkin is subtle. I’m thinking of bucking the curve and calling it “Autumn Spice” or “Falling Leaves” or some such marketing babble.

          I detest pumpkin and even I’d use this.

          • greenmanTN

            I like pumpkin pies but don’t want that stuff in coffee, cheesecake, etc.

          • Treant

            I read a review that called the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte “bile” and went downhill from there.

            I don’t even like pumpkin pie. Apple, cherry, peach, pear, sure. Gourds do not belong in pie.

          • vorpal 😼

            If I recall correctly, their pumpkin muffins were quite good.
            I do like pumpkin (and pumpkin pie, although it’s far from my favourite), but not in my beverages.

          • canoebum

            Pumpkin, squash pies…all good. I make them from scratch. You’re just not topping them with the right whipped cream. Coconut custard remains my favorite custard pie.

          • Treant

            I do like a good coconut custard. But I prefer lemon. 🙂

  • Mike

    It’s funny, the churchies fancy themselves so very moral and good, but none of them has ever petitioned a court for a change in the law so they might be kinder, more generous, or more inclusive. It’s only so they may be more antisocial and more cruel than the law allows.

    The right has been sulking since lunch counters were first integrated decades ago, and this is their revenge served cold, on a raft.

    • Joe in PA

      so very moral and good….

      Bwahahaha.

      Yesterday I was driving in an area unfamiliar (but not too far from home), we saw this fucking church that would rival the thing Olsteen preaches in. The $$$$ that must have been spent to build that monstrosity would feed/clothe all the poor people in the world! (I’m generalizing of course, but still…it was nauseating) And they don’t get it. 🙁

  • Ken M

    And why don’t they just call it what it is, “Christian Objections.” For decades it’s been religious this, and religious that, when the only ones doing the whining have been the Christians. Of course they know that if just once they stood up and called it what it is, it’s lack of Constitutionality would come shining through. If we’re to see an end to this whole religious persecution BS, people of other faiths will have to rise in opposition to Christians based beliefs, outside of the Church. I’m not playing “Lions and Christians” here, but LGBT vs “Religion” will go on for eternity.

    • DN

      Well there was this one time in 2007, when muslim cabbies picking up fares at Minneapolis airport were refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (really easy to spot when it’s giant bottles in a duty free bag).

      Do you remember christians getting all bent out of shape to defend *this* religious freedom? Me either.

      PS: they were also refusing to carry *blind* people with service dogs.

      http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800

    • GayOldLady

      LGBT vs “Religion” has existed since religion came into existence. We were here long before religion.

      • Scotty Pressley

        In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Adam and Eve established religion through obedience to God long before homosexuals inhabited the Cities of the Plain.

        • GayOldLady

          Brhahahahaha!

  • Jerry Kott

    Christian Supremacy!

    • Scotty Pressley

      No, they hold the keys to their own reality. Refusing to celebrate your choice of gay marriage doesn’t change your reality unless you let it, which of course you can do through self-victimization. Playing the role of the poor, abused, helpless victim is something liberal pig imperialists in the LGBTQ community have been doing already. Rather than wage an assault on good Christian small business owners, why not go to Wal-Mart where you’ll easily find someone who can make your homosexual cake?

      Christian small business owners, unlike Wal-Mart, won’t sell their souls to the idols of Sodom and Gomorrah even if SCOTUS rules against religious freedom in this case. These businesses will change their scope before they are forced against their will to serve the lustful sinful gods of Sodom.

  • Hue-Man

    Canadian Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Trinity Western University Law School case (“Liberty Law School North”) on November 30 and December 1 (live webcast). Several provinces have refused to accredit graduates of the law school (it doesn’t exist yet) due to the anti-LGBT covenant all students are required to accept.

    It’s a hard case to call; TWU won a similar 2001 Supreme Court action against the B.C. College of Teachers which refused to accredit its teachers. On the other hand, it’s 16 years later and LGBT and other minority rights have been granted more importance. The only Justice who heard the 2001 case is Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin who is retiring in December.

    http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=37318
    2001 Case: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1867/index.do

  • Ross

    I hope that the Court rules FOR the baker.

    Because I really hate my neighbor. He offends my religious beliefs.

    So, with the Court’s blessing, I will soon be able to murder him. With impunity!

    Oh, and my boss also offends my religious beliefs, and my sister, and my ex, and…

    • bzrd

      LOL
      and everything comes to a standstill as all religious beliefs have blood running in the streets and every business establishment
      meanwhile, gun sales hit the roof

  • KnownDonorDad

    On the docket: are gay people second-class citizens, yes or no?

  • Mike

    I love the irony. This is a cry of victimhood by the people who have all the privilege and power. Just knowing about other people’s thoughts and private acts can make it impossible for a baker to sell things to them, making the baker the ultimate cupcake.

    Bill Maher and Sam Harris and the rest only bitch about college students who try to make things difficult for nazis on campus, as if that’s what’s going to destroy our democracy. No guys, right wing cupcake-ism with its privilege and power is much more poisonous.

    • KnownDonorDad

      Check out the MRAs for more of the mighty whine of victimhood from the privileged.

  • j.martindale

    The SCOTUS Reynolds decision regarding Mormon polygamy should be a BIG roadblock to the baker’s case:

    Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

    The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
    However it held that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that
    standard. The principle that a person could only be married singly, not
    plurally, existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

    The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson
    in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief
    and action that flowed from religious belief. The former “lies solely
    between man and his God,” therefore “the legislative powers of the
    government reach actions only, and not opinions.” The court considered
    that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human
    sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and “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.” The Court believed the First Amendment forbade
    Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate
    against action.

    Note: The SCOTUS came down UNANIMOUS on this decision.

  • FAEN

    You are NOT an artist-you bake cakes and if you own a business you should bake cakes for everyone not pick and choose based on your personal religious beliefs.

  • Ninja0980

    Bottom line, if SCOTUS rules against us, all civil rights laws will be worthless.
    You can’t come up with a ruling that makes it okay to ignore civil rights laws for one group of people and not the rest.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      They might try.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      You are also assuming Supreme Court opinions must make sense! But if you read through any number of opinions (in fact, perhaps the majority), you will see that many just do not make sense (they don’t hold water logically, or any other way). (See, e.g., especially, Bush v. Gore)

      Fucking Disqus

  • JWC

    All this over a fucking cake

    • UrsusArctos

      A Trojan Horse cake. The ruling is meant to enact XIAN sharia law. No one else’s religion counts because: hubris!

      • JWC

        I am rather liking Ron Reagan Jr. plight about antheism and getting church to hell out of state as the original constitution decreed. It’s time Americans took hold of its self and stopped groups like, organized religion and the NRA from hijacking the constitution, bastardizing and then lying as to that is the way it was meant to be

    • Scotty Pressley

      Liberal pigs aren’t happy unless they are victims, so yes, we can’t be surprised to see Christian business owners persecuted by faggots over the controversial legalization of fag marriage, which the LGBTQ community and Democrats lied by saying in so legalizing it that it would not infringe on religious freedom.

  • stvnc44

    Of course we will all be watching this closely and waiting for the SCOTUS to pass judgment.
    If they support the baker/bakery to allow discrimination based on their mythological beliefs, then it will become
    incumbent on all of us to see to it they follow their mythology to the letter. For those that can take the time to
    watch the stores/bakeries/etc that will use this law, if any violation of the LEVITICUS abominations walks in and does
    business with and is not turned away, the we must file some action.
    Now the easiest ones to spot will be wearing tattoos.
    Thank you.

    • Scotty Pressley

      Religious beliefs aren’t mythological, atheist pig.

  • Tiger Quinn

    Then I propose this: as a religion is deeply held personal beliefs, and that now is law, and they’ve said time and again that being gay is a CHOICE – then we’ll found the Church of Gay, hold those deep beliefs, and go to court over whose god is right.

    • Bj Lincoln

      I’ll join! I will even help build an alter from all the damn toaster collecting dust. How about power tools or some gay pet thing? I am sick of toasters!

    • Already been done – The Metropolitan Community Church.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    Pandora, meet box.

    Hey, if they’re going to argue this “concept/principle”, it should apply across the board.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8ee301ab590a19215028528bf971de7a5578e0f3a477c834046270f10898debc.jpg

  • While the intended target of this licence to refuse employment, housing, education, healthcare, and all goods and services is currently just LGBT people, there is nothing to stop it spreading to other disliked minorities, which are legion.

    For example, it allows a Catholic supermarket checkout operator to refuse to sell condoms to any customer, a Muslim checkout operator likewise to refuse to sell alcohol to any customer, or to serve Jews, and so on. The owner of the supermarket would be required to allow them to refuse to serve the customers of the supermarket based on any religious belief at all, so long as it is “deeply held”, moreover no objective burden of proof is required for this.

    A customer might go into Walmart, pick a six pack of beer and take it to the checkout, only to discover that the checkout operator would refuse service on the basis that passing the beer through the register was encouraging him to sin, and the checkout operator was participating in the sin, when it could be prevented by refusing to scan the beer. The owner of the supermarket will be powerless to dismiss an employee for refusing to carry out their job.

    Businesses can also refuse to rent housing, sell insurance, sell property, provide healthcare, provide education, sell goods and services to people of another religion whose beliefs they don’t agree with. For example a Christian factory owner could refuse to employ non-Christians, or even Christians from another religious denomination, e.g. Catholic and Protestant, and the same could go for Jewish or Muslim factory owners.

    I can see activists getting ready to load up the courts for generations to come with vexatious litigation just to show up this monstrous piece of malice for what it truly is.

    • Stuart Wyman-Cahall

      Excellent analysis that must be shared with our straight allies. I’m sharing this! It’s excellent!!

      • Thanks Stuart! I’ve since edited it, so you may wish to re-copy and send again.

    • Scotty Pressley

      You are so full of crap! LGBTQ liberal pig propaganda at its best!

      • That’s just a load of name calling. You haven’t addressed a single issue I raised, and just posted personal abuse instead. Name calling is not rebuttal.

        • Scotty Pressley

          That’s because all of your issues are based on unfounded garbage, but four small mom-and-pop shops persecuted in liberal pig blue states serve as damning evidence of the LGBTQ community’s desire to push it’s conquer-and-destroy imperialist agenda against good moral Christians opposed to their immoral choice.

  • Mike Knife

    Just in time for Christmas cake;)

  • fkevin

    Same but different topic: Yeah religious freedom for Satanists!:

    The woman, identified as Mary Doe in court documents, argued that her religion does not adhere to the idea that life begins at conception, and, because of that, the prerequisites for an abortion in Missouri are unconstitutionally violating her freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment.

    Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article177663856.html#storylink=cpy

  • supasugacrisp

    Christ…..why not ASAP!!!! I’m scared someone on the court will pass, then we will be really screwed!!!

  • Rick James Brown

    Do not underestimate the ENORMOUS importance of: Masterpiece
    Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. If we lose, it will
    literally be LEGAL to say to ANY customer: “I THINK you’re gay, so I’m
    not going to serve you food/sell you flowers/rent you a hotel
    room/decorate your cake,” etc… We will be living in a “gay Jim Crow”
    nation.

    SAD AND SICKENING !

    Although
    it is hard to believe that Kennedy, who voted with the good guys on –
    Romer vs. Evans, Lawrence vs. Texas, United States vs. Windsor, and
    Obergefell vs. Hodges, would vote for this hideous new law, he did cast
    the deciding vote against us in Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale, and in
    SCOTUS, as we all know, anything can happen.

    If we lose, it will be 2035 until we overturn it. (Ask me how I can be so sure of the specific year.)

    So if there’s anything we can do to influence SCOTUS…we need to do it !!

    And by the way, it’s already happening –

    June:

    “A
    federal appeals court says Mississippi can start enforcing a law that
    will let merchants and government employees cite religious beliefs to
    deny services to same-sex couples.”

    • Scotty Pressley

      Wow, you really are a drama queen. You know just as well as anyone that most businesses hire non-Christians to do the work Christians don’t feel comfortable doing.

      Homosexual couples can have a wedding cake made without issue at a local Wal-Mart, but these greedy imperialist queers are trying to ruin small mom-and-pop shops who aren’t so secularized like Wal-Mart to bow down and worship the idols of Sodom and Gomorrah by honoring and contributing to the celebration of the anti-Christian institution of gay marriage.

  • andrew

    I would never want to buy an edible item from a hater. Boycott the bigot and get all of your family, friends and associates to do the same. Who would eat a cake that a bigot was forced to bake for them? Find a friendly baker. Economically destroy the bigot.

    • Doesn’t work when you’re a member of a disliked minority. Because you’re a minority, “finding another baker” doesn’t impact on their bottom line, and really inconveniences you more than it does them. This is the underlying motivation for the passage of the 14th Amendment, to protect minorities like African Americans (who number only 14% of the US population) from the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’

    • Scotty Pressley

      Yeah, his business will boom if liberal imperialists try to take away the wedding cake potion of his business because he refuses to honor the abomination of gay marriage. People all over the country will buy his cakes for birthdays, holidays, and special occasions to support him against the Democratic Party’s hate-filled Anti-Chistian empire.

      By the same token, Christians will find out which business owners in their cities are gay, and they’ll quit frequenting those businesses. Imperialist LGBTQ America will hurt themselves severely, if the Supreme Court favors against the Freedom of Religion.

  • Geordon VanTassle

    What I want to know is who forced this hose head to decorate wedding cakes in the first place!

    • Scotty Pressley

      Who forced the faggot in Seattle to have a coffee shop?

      • Geordon VanTassle

        Wtf does coffee in Seattle have to do with this case? And bigoted, much?

        • Scotty Pressley

          Because religious bigot and professed faggot owner of Bedlam Coffee in Seattle kicked out a group of Christians from his store just for being Christians. Because his faggot barista told him them they were proselyting outside (which is what Christians do).

          • Geordon VanTassle

            Got any news articles NOT on Breitbart or The Blaze for this incident?

          • Scotty Pressley

            The liberal pig media isn’t going to cover something that hurts their agendas. You aren’t very bright, if you can’t recognize that, but his vulgar fag-filled tirade was recorded on video and will serve as evidence in SCOTUS against imperialist LGBTQ America for Masterpiece Cakeshop’s case that fag marriage would try to undermine religious freedom.

  • Dunkerblinker

    After gays who will he object to next?

    • Scotty Pressley

      He doesn’t object to gays. He objects to gay marriage. There’s a difference. He’ll make a queer a birthday cake. Everyone has birthdays. Not everyone has a fag marriage.

  • Scotty Pressley

    Masterpiece Cakeshop is going to pound imperialist LGBTQ America into the ground in the Supreme Court thanks to Bedlam Coffee

    • Blake Paine

      he kicked them out because of their anti-choice actions, not their beliefs.

      • Scotty Pressley

        Christians will always promote the sanctity of human life. This queer is a religious bigot and kicked them out for being Christians and doing what Christians are supposed to do. Notwithstanding, the Christians did not proselyte or solicit their information in this homo’s place of business. He’s just an angry faggot, and it showed. He had no more right to refuse service to Christians as Christians do in refusing to celebrate a fag wedding by baking a cake. You’re trying to spin a story where the fag should always be right. Well, guess what? You can’t have it both ways!!

        • Blake Paine

          He didn’t refuse them because they were Christians but because they were repressive anti-choicers of a particularly loathsome variety as is your language. You could be tossed out of a business too without any law being broken.

          • Scotty Pressley

            There was no law broken for refusing to celebrate a fag marriage by making a fag wedding cake too, buddy.

          • Blake Paine

            No one asked them to celebrate anything, just sell what they freely offered to the public. And yes sexual orientation is a protected civil rights class in Colorado, they can no more refuse service because of that than they could race or creed.

          • Scotty Pressley

            Sorry, but fag marriage is different from being a homo. You’re just trying to pose the argument that fags always get what they want. A cake honoring an abomination is wrong.

          • Blake Paine

            If the owner can’t serve the public even those with creeds that have same séx marriages, they shouldn’t have been offering it to the public to begin with. That’s what private membership organizations are for.

          • Scotty Pressley

            They offered what they could within the moral boundaries of God rather than the immoral laws of the land. Gay marriage will always be an abomination. Of course, the liberal pigs in Congress said legalized gay marriage would never infringe on religious freedom under any circumstance when Prop 8 was being repealed, but of course, they lied like always in defense of sexual immorality.

          • Scotty Pressley

            Religion is also a protected class, so the fudge packer from Seattle had no right to refuse service to those Christians. And religion was a much longer protected right before the freedom to be a faggot.

          • Blake Paine

            He didn’t kick them out for their religion but their anti-choice activities.