DOJ Petitions Supreme Court To Make Oral Arguments Against LGBT Rights During Colorado Baker Hearing

From the right wing Townhall:

The Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court Wednesday for permission to speak during December 5th oral arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which began when Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple’s wedding because he disagrees with same-sex marriage.

“The United States has a substantial interest in this case,” writes Solicitor General Noel Francisco who, the DOJ confirmed, will deliver the United States’ argument.

“As a general matter, the United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of federal constitutional rights of free expression,” the motion reads. “In addition, the United States has a particular interest in the scope of such rights in the context of the Colorado statute here, which shares certain features with federal public accommodations laws including Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.”

More from ThinkProgress:

Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt was one of the first to catch wind that the United States might be asking for time at the Supreme Court, and he asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions about it in an interview Thursday morning. 

“We ought to be more respectful of people, really, on both sides, perhaps, to express themselves without always ending up in court,” Sessions said, adding that he believes the law, “if properly enforced… protects expression of religion.”

Sessions echoed those sentiments Thursday afternoon in remarks to the Heritage Foundation. Referring to the Department’s amicus brief, Sessions again stated his belief that nondiscrimination laws can be overruled by an individual’s religious beliefs.

  • Xiao Ai: The Social Gadfly

    O/T? You decide but, you need to know this.

    https://twitter.com/SSWorks/status/923602062943846400

  • HZ81

    Wow, the LCR tweet. Quisling fuck.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Fuck, quisling, fuck!

      • JCF

        No, do NOT fuck quislings. “Lysistrata” those traitors!

    • Tread

      I’m beginning to think they’re masochists who love getting their nuts stepped on.

      • HZ81

        Ha, every single day, it seems.

      • Judas Peckerwood

        I’m pretty sure that none of them is actually LGBTQ.

        • Tread

          Redpills or 4chaners masquerading as LGBT to troll the rest of us.

    • scottrose
      • HZ81

        Is there a Douchebag of the Year award? He’s got it locked up.

      • Strepsi

        I call him a House Faggot.

  • joe ho

    But Bernie or Busters and Green Partiers said both parties were the same!

    What vile fucktards they are.

    • Rocco

      Lol

  • bkmn

    My hope is that he coordinates his message with ADF and Libety Console.

  • FAEN

    “We need to be more respectful to all people except the faggots”

    KKKeebler Elf

  • Rex

    Fuck you Jeff Sessions, and all your little cake and cookie baking bigoted friends.

    • Rocco

      I wouldn’t fuck him with YOUR dick…or anybody else’s. No offense…

  • Harley

    If I were so inclined it sounds like, too me, if I had a religious objection to making a meal for a colored person in my restaurant I could refuse to do it. There are plenty of bible verses I could throw at it in court if challenged. These idiots are trying to reverse the civil rights act. They really want to go back to the 50’s………the 1650’s.

    • Refugay

      You have a point but you’re framing it the wrong way-race is a protected class. It’s a better argument to use the example of divorced people or single parents-they are not protected classes and they are easily equatable in the lens of actual religious objections by the Catholic Church and other Christian sects.

  • Duh-David

    Yes, the law “protects expression of religion.” Except, cakes aren’t an expression of any known religion. The Supremes will not fall for emotional pandering to the base.

    • Judas Peckerwood

      You’re much more optimistic than I.

    • AaronD12

      Except for the stolen Supreme Court seat, Neil Gorsuch, who is likely still sucking on The Donald’s teat.

      • AmeriCanadian

        If there is any silver lining in this (at all), it’s that the makeup of the court didn’t really change with Gorsuch. The same will not be able to be said if Kennedy or one of the liberal leaning justices retires and is replaced by a Drumpf nominee.

    • clay

      Damn counter-suggestibility, now you got me scanning memory for a religion that uses cake in a ritual.

    • The_Wretched

      I’m not so sure. There’s a long standing (and totally bs) argument that goes like this:
      1. I am a full and true christian
      2. I live the life of the word 24/7
      3. Every one of my actions is an act of faith (even pooping!)
      4. Baking a cake for a gay wedding entangles me in that wedding
      5. I lose ritual purity if I bake a cake for a gay wedding
      6. That’s an encumbrance on my religion

      the various steps get restated differently and sometimes they aren’t explicit with the full argument but there you go.

      • Duh-David

        My hope is that the opinion states clearly that freedom of religion does not equal accommodation of religion.

  • Tawreos

    Last week Sessions said he didn’t know if his policies could harm gay people, this week he wants to prove that was a lie.

    • kaydenpat

      But we’ve always known that Sessions is an extreme Rightwinger with extreme religious views. This should be no surprise to anyone but the Log Cabin Republicans.

    • The_Wretched

      He’s not even mildly racist.

      • bzrd

        mild cheese gets stinky as it ages

        • The_Wretched

          ;p i’m being subtle. Sessions is extremely and openly racist. He could head up the Klan and fit right in.

          • bzrd

            I was just being nice by saying he’s old and stinking ’cause we sure know he’s a nazi

        • RobynWatts

          Cheese gets moldy past its expiration date and needs to be thrown out, ASAP.

          A moldy bigot like Sessions is passed his expiration date in politics and needs to be thrown out, ASAP.

          Coincidence? I think so. 😁

    • scottrose
    • JackFknTwist

      Sessions is the runt of the GOP/Tory pack.

  • vorpal 😼

    I’m not surprised, but I am still utterly disgusted.

    While Jack Phillips may have religious beliefs, Masterpiece Cakeshop is not Jack Phillips, and does not have religious beliefs. Jack Phillips can be an asshole to his lack of a heart’s content to gay people; Masterpiece Cakeshop, on the other hand, should be forced to obey nondiscrimination laws as per the conditions of its business license.

    • boobert

      Remember hobby lobby?

      • vorpal 😼

        I try every day to forget the sheer lunacy of these attempts to allow corporations to assume personhood.

        If a corporation is a person, when it breaks certain laws, it should be held criminally accountable instead of simply fined: suspend its operations and essentially “imprison” it for a period of time.

        You shouldn’t be able to have your disgusting Christian baked wedding cake (complete with tacky fondant) and eat it, too.

      • Lawerence Collins

        Sadly I do.

      • juanjo54

        Different issue there. Hobby Lobby was being forced to pay for health care it religiously disagreed with. Here the cake being sold is the same regardless of who buys it or the purpose it is put to once bought

    • Tawreos

      Part of the problem is that it is most likely a sole proprietor business. In that set up the laws usually view him and the business as the same entity, he is the business and the business is him. If the Supreme Court sides with him it is most likely due to that rather than the religious aspect of it. I could be way off though since I am an accountant and not a lawyer.

      • vorpal 😼

        I know, and it’s insanity. In Colorado – at least where Masterpiece Cakeshop is located – there are nondiscrimination requirements in place as a condition of a business license, but I guess we’ll see if SCOTUS decides to override this, which – if they do – is going to open the floodgates to discrimination, especially against LGBT people, and not just in the domain of wedding services.

        • scottrose

          One possible future corrective could occur when Dems have control and expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court to counteract the Gorsuch stolen-seat effect.

          • Danieruw

            Damn right. I’ve often thought lately that we need to do that when the Dems are back in power.

          • Al Prazolam

            We all know how Gorsuch is going to rule, right? Mr. Strict Constructionist will screw over gays in a New York second.

        • Ninja0980

          Not just LGBT people but other groups as well.
          Why should you serve blacks, latinos, Jews etc. if your faith (or what you claim) says otherwise?

      • The_Wretched

        I could see them using that ‘alter-ego’ argument like they did for HobbyLobby. It’s crappy as law btw and the implications are untenable but that’s where we are.

      • BobSF_94117

        It’s very unlikely that he hasn’t protected himself by forming some sort of business entity.

      • canoebum

        Sorry, not buying it, not even if he is a sole proprietor. With his business license issued by the municipality or state, comes a set of rules. The right of states to regulate commerce is a long settled issue. Either he abides by the rules of operating a public establishment, or he can turn it into a private club and see how many people are willing to join just to buy a fucking cupcake.

      • Uncle Mark

        Is this a church, or is it a bakery? It’s called “Masterpiece Cakeshop,” not “Our Lady of the Blessed Pastries.” You sell cakes, not communion. If you have religious requirements, such that customers must be worthy of your sacred shit, then post them on the door and all your ads, so the rest of the customers can decide if they wish to worship at your bakeshop or not. My guess is that they know such requirements would be bad for their business, and want the joy of picking and choosing who they wish to exclude & shame. Hateful fuckers

        • Snarkaholic

          They also want the option of, when it’s the end of the month and sales are low, to grudgingly make cakes for “those people.”

      • juanjo54

        It is still a commercial transaction. Truth be known this religious act theory is one which could be applied to any occupation. As in, “oh God told me to minister to all people by installing the best plumbing in the the world as a testament to his greatness”. Or, “god told me I should become a doctor and work in a hospital ER to save people and show them the mercy of his grace”.

        Selling a cake is no more artistic than selling a sandwich or a really good plate of authentic Hungarian guláš with nokedli. Once sold, the person who bought it is the one who decides how it shall be used. He can feed it to gay people, straight people, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Whites or even Republicans if he chooses.

        Weddings, secular or religious do not require cake. Cake is a dessert served at a reception, it is not part of the wedding ritual whether religious or secular. I have been doing weddings for people for a long time as a side job. I know what the legal requirements are for a valid marriage and none of them require cake. I have done Christian marriages, most often with the version of vows found in the common prayer handbook [2000]. In none of the ceremonies I have presided over was cake ever a part of the wedding vows exchange nor referenced in the proclamation of the wedding.

        This entire argument about protecting the freedom of expression of the baker is based upon sand.

        • GeoffreyPS

          The freedom of expression argument is specious. If he has made the same cake many times and all of sudden is unwilling to sell it to a certain clientele, that has nothing to do with the expression of the cake. I could see the argument being successful if he refused to write a specific message on the cake, but not for the cake itself. I think Matt Baume explained it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWW0wHiRso.

          • juanjo54

            This is one of those issues where lawyers, especially constitutional lawyers, make very specific distinctions which often are confusing to a lay person without legal training.

            If a baker offers a service to the public, making wedding cakes, then he cannot violate the laws of the jurisdiction regarding those cakes. This includes federal, state and municipal laws governing the commercial transaction regarding discrimination. While in college I worked for a caterer/restaurateur. My experience there as well as later is that bakers offering a wedding cake service have a general business practice. They have a photo book showing the types of cakes they offer or in the case of custom cakes, the types they have made. They have a list of price points based on the type of cake, type of icing, level of decoration etc. So for example if you buy one of the standard cakes – say a white 3-tiered cake with a butter cream icing or a fondant icing, with some decoration, that price is lower than a custom cake, one with elaborate decoration etc. But the fact is these are standardized. If there is any writing is is typically things like the intertwined initials of the couple or some short phrase like Love, best day ever etc,

            The point all of this is a service offered to anyone who seeks a cake. There is no difference between a cake made for a mixed sex couple and a same sex couple if it is a traditional 3-tier cake with icing and some decorations on it and possibly the initials of the couple.

            In such situation, the commercial argument fails and frankly always should fail.

            If someone is ordering a cake with a specific slogan on it, the argument shifts somewhat legally. Then it becomes “political” speech. In no jurisdiction is political speech protected from private actors. Thus a Black baker need not decorate a wedding cake with “White Power” nor a Jewish baker make a cake announcing “Blood & Soil”. Likewise a Christian baker could refuse to decorate a cake with the phrase “gay rights”.

            But that is not the issue here. This couple was asking for a wedding cake. When they showed up to do the viewing [which usually includes a tasting of the different types of cakes and icings offered], they were turned away. So there is no evidence of any political speech here. Just religious bigotry.

        • Strepsi

          it is nonsense, but compelling nonsense — and sadly there ARE doctors who won’t treat gay people, Catholic hospitals who wont perform certain services to people, etc. etc.

  • kaydenpat

    This is not protection of religious rights. It’s protection of bigotry. If SCOTUS decides in the bakers’ favor, it will be open season on the LGBT community. Every bigot will come out of the woodwork to start denying them services.

    • Rocco

      It will also undermine all civil rights laws. If they rule against us, the bigots will come out of the woodwork, claiming their ‘religious beliefs’ prevent them from providing goods and services to all sorts of minorities. Scary. I hope this little evil gnome’s penis rots off.

      • Circ09

        Most other minorities have protections in the Civil Rights Act that makes the hurdles much harder to overcome.

        • ArchiLaw

          Not necessarily. The argument seems to be that the religious freedoms of the first amendment trump state law. If that argument (wrongly) wins, then extending the argument to federal law is a small step.

          • Strepsi

            Exactly – their endgame is the Republicans want to stop serving coffee to ni**ers again.

        • Rocco

          Doesn’t mean the bigots won’t try…its approach they’ve used before.

      • kaydenpat

        Exactly. Jim Crow, here we come.

    • CCleverly

      And people wonder why the disenfranchised wear special vests. I have a great Xmas vest that would make you shudder.

  • netxtown

    so who is gonna have to pot a little tree for the elf to preach from?

  • Pizza009

    Your religion stops where my rights begin. Now fuck off.

  • Sam_Handwitch

    If Jackass Phillips bakes a cake for an obese customer isn’t he an accesory to the sin of gluttony?

  • clay

    Sounds like Secessions wants to use this as a way to overturn all state and local protections.

  • This is going to get even more ugly and Fucked up than the marriage battle. We all know how this case should come out, but we all know that those chances are pretty slim, and fading fast.
    Fuck you Sessions, Fuck you tRump, Fuck you anyone who voted for this shit.
    I’ll be damned that I go back into the closet.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    On a side note, We got engaged. Marriage will happen soon.

    • The_Wretched

      Congratulations on your engagement!

    • Tawreos

      Congratulations, we always need more good news. =)

    • Gustav2
      • bzrd

        thanks, Gustav2, it is, indeed, time for more dancing!

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      Congrats to you !

    • DaveMiller135

      Mazel Tov!

    • ArchiLaw

      Congratulations, Ed!

    • Ninja0980

      Congrats to your marriage!

    • Dazzer

      Many congrats.

    • Richard, another Canuck

      Congrats Ed and to your fiance as well.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Congratulations!!!

    • Anastasia Beaverhousen

      I’ll go get a bottle of champagne to celebrate. What will you have? Congrats!

    • Lawerence Collins

      Lying here in the hospital with no fucks left to give.. kill them all!! Remember they’re the ones that stated that fish rots from the head down
      Start with the festering Orange one! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4a1e2168bc4ae2cdbefaf292cc585c344cd84a0493735267e4ba8c2a142ade71.jpg

      • vorpal 😼

        Are you okay???

        • Robincho

          Who gives a shit?…

          • vorpal 😼

            Well, he’s not always horrible, and like it or not, he is one of ours…

          • Lawerence Collins

            Hugs and kisses to you as well

        • Lawerence Collins

          Whatever I post will end up being used against me by many here. What you call (horrible) is for me. Intense passion and other emotions.
          But you were kind enough to ask. Dr found suspicious looking lymph nodes in abdomen. They did a biopsy. Also have a very rare blood disorder. My counts are out of whack again.

          • vorpal 😼

            Ugh… sorry to hear it, Lawerence. That really sucks.
            I hope that the lymph node scare turns out to be nothing more than just a scare and that your blood disorder is manageable.

            (I understand counts being out of whack… I have Crohn’s, so I absorb nothing properly. My Vit-D level on my last test was 8.5, when normal is 30 -100.)

            Be well.

    • vorpal 😼

      Congratulations to you and your man, Ed!
      Awesome to have some good news here for a change!

    • JCF

      Mazel Tov!

    • Cattleya1

      Get it in writing, fast. The evil elf is hell bent on taking away your right to marry the man you love.

    • Falconlights

      Congratulations and I wish you gentlemen many years of happiness together.

    • RobynWatts

      Congratulations, Ed!!! May the two of you have a wonderful life together as a married couple!

  • The_Wretched

    “Referring to the Department’s amicus brief, Sessions again stated his
    belief that nondiscrimination laws can be overruled by an individual’s
    religious beliefs.”

    How he holds that view and is the US-AG is beyond me. The non-discimination laws are fully valid and legal and apply to all citizens equally. His position would allow back racial covenants for landtransfers (ie no blacks or jews can buy in this neighborhood) as well as the anti-miscegenation laws (and a host of related law).

    It’s the bad olde days on steroids and flys counter to many supreme court rulings.

    • Orly

      “Referring to the Department’s amicus brief, Sessions again stated his belief that nondiscrimination laws can be overruled by an individual’s
      religious beliefs.”

      If the cake shop wins, what precedent will that set going forward?

      What other laws can they find that can be “overruled” by an individual’s religious belief? It will be… interesting to see how this plays out.

      • bzrd

        yes, I guess we better start collecting stones ’cause kimmy’s been married 4 times

      • Snarkaholic

        If people decide that it’s against their religious beliefs to pay taxes…
        …yeah, let’s see how fast Sesspool changes his tune then!

      • RaygunsGoZap

        Murder is in the top two, I would put money on it.

  • Jack

    That’s low. I’m going to have to muster up the courage to read the DOJ’s “amicus” brief.

    Remember, transcripts are available on line the day of the argument; audio is available at the end of each week.

  • greenmanTN

    It would be a shame if someone crushed that little gnome in the pages of a book… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3a34bc753a6a6632c2d1dff3660cd0cfc62114072c702501e605866e1c8dd051.jpg

    • Tawreos

      I would at least make it the bible so he could die happy

      • Tomcat

        No, that would be Cruz, the preacher.

        • clay

          I bet Pence wacks it with the family bible to make it behave.

    • Canadian Observer

      Yeah, you should never disrespect books that way. (Speaking as an out of the closet bibliophile)

  • Hank
  • Circ09

    I don’t know who I hate more today, the people in office or the people of the USA that willfully put them there.

    • Hank

      BOTH!!!

    • Cranky Squirrel

      The assholes in charge are only a symptom. It’s the people that put them there and it’s the people who deserve the most scorn.

    • The_Wretched

      ” the people of the USA that”

      I’m happy to blame the people who voted for Trump and the republicans. However, they are less important than the people who paid for those votes and the criminals who keep making the voting systems un-auditable and who keep messing with the votes.

      • Circ09

        Aren’t those basically all the same people, though?

        • The_Wretched

          It’s three different sets of people:
          1. trump voters – distributed nationally, mostly white and mostly less educated.
          2. Evil / criminal agents of the oligarch. they tampered with the machines and other physical acts . I’m also lumping in the biased judges and prosecutors who let the tamperers get away with it.
          3. the Money. The elites, the aristocrats, the oligarchs. These are the ones paying for the political tools who carry out their bidding.
          4. office holders (for clarity)

          Each of these groups is demographically distinct and doesn’t do the ‘job’ of the other ones.

    • This is the long-awaited result of — what is it now, 40 or 50 years? of Republican attacks on public education. Years of dumbing down the curriculum, trying to get creationism taught as science — and it was Texas, wasn’t it, that wanted to eliminate critical thinking skills from the curriculum?

      So now we have the electorate that they’ve always wanted — at least, among those who are allowed to vote.

      • Franciscan

        Education is not valued in the United States in general, but especially in Texas.

    • RaygunsGoZap

      It’s all one huge composite shit being

  • David in Palm Springs

    “In addition, the United States has a particular interest in the scope of such rights in the context of the Colorado statute here, which shares certain features with federal public accommodations laws including Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…”

    I’m not sure how you can argue that the Civil Rights Act should be supported, but the Colorado statue shouldn’t. Especially when you’ve just admitted that it’s basically an extension of the law you support. Good luck trying to explain why all Americans should be able to discriminate against LGBT citizens whenever and wherever they want.

    • You’re reading it wrong — it’s set-up to gut the Civil Rights Act.

  • boobert

    Can we send him to that secret ranch in texas where they finished off scalia?

    • Tawreos

      He is not tall enough to ride the hookers at that place.

  • Gigi

    “Sessions again stated his belief that nondiscrimination laws can be overruled by an individual’s religious beliefs.” Oh ya? Well get ready for an onslaught of Satanists and pro-LGBT businesses refusing to serve Talibangelists based on their deeply held religious beliefs!

  • Tawreos

    If the baker is participating in a wedding by making the cake then the gun shop owner is participating in a murder by selling a gun.

    • clay

      Or, more to the point in this case, the gun manufacturer.

      • Tawreos

        Works for me =)

      • Tomcat

        That would make the cake mix company responsible too then.
        Hell they may stop selling their mix to bakeries that make gay cakes.

        • clay

          I’m seeing cake mix, or flour, etc. as analogous to the steel in the gun.

      • Gustav2

        Isn’t there a law specifically exempting gun manufacturers from liability?

        • clay

          Yep. And not an historical one– it’s the relatively recent inflection point of the NRA losing individual members and turning into the gun manufacturers’ lobby.

        • Tomcat

          BUT NOT automobile manufacturers.

  • billbear1961

    WHO will get to play GOD and deny people their civil rights, and WHO will be the ONLY ones government decides can be targeted and turned away??

    The first time some doctor or hospital turns someone away who subsequently DIES will finally reveal how EVIL this country truly is (and this VILE people, calling themselves “Christians,” will shrug their shoulders, the same way they do when police murder unarmed people of colour, when ICE behaves like GESTAPO with immigrants).

    You will allow it, just as you let this “president” hide his financial crimes, just as you let the right steal your elections and pack the courts with fanatics, just as you’ll let even CHILDREN die without adequate healthcare.

    NOTHING the right does–no crime, no outrage–will get you into the streets in the massive and relentless protests needed NOW to STOP fascism.

    You will get NO leadership from the base COWARDS in the Democratic party, and your “free” press will normalize this, as they normalized Trump, as they are normalizing fascism.

    THIS can only happen in a country that is no longer a genuine democracy and where the people are craven SERFS, which is WHY it is GOING to HAPPEN.

    Although I am profoundly pessimistic by nature, even I would not have thought things this BAD would ever come to pass in the U.S., but now I see the Republic with NO loud and proud defenders in positions of real power, no prominent elected voices, doing battle, 24/7, to defend this democracy from OBVIOUS crimes, from a party of OBVIOUS gangsters, from a demented, dangerously reckless, racist MANIAC so OUTFIT, in ever way, for the presidency that a CHILD can see it.

    And the streets are QUIET.

  • BobSF_94117

    The case is against a BAKERY, not a baker.

    Why do we fall into the traps laid by our enemies?

    • clay

      (sole proprietor and employee)

      • BobSF_94117

        If he’s an employee, then there’s definitely a corporate structure, a business entity that, even if owned entirely by him, is not a human being and is not the same entity as him.

    • Natty Enquirer

      Masterpiece Cakeshop, LLC is owned by two people. One of them, Jack Phillips, is the baker and he is the one who refused to make a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins. Anyway, since Hobby Lobby, closely-held businesses like Masterpiece have religious rights as fictional persons.

      • clay

        Wow, that’s another thing the DoJ brief gets wrong, then.

      • Stev84

        The whole point of an LLC is so that the owner and the company aren’t the same legal entity. Not that US law actually cares about that anymore

        • clay

          Not that Turmp cares about that when he’s forced to write a check.

      • BobSF_94117

        The fiction of Hobby Lobby will hang around a lot longer if we keep discussing issues in terms that support the ludicrous idea that forcing a company to obey the laws violates the owner’s religious sensibilities.

        If the other person is not a member of Phillips’ family, it’s not so closely held.

      • BobSF_94117

        And to be clear, he is A baker. Other people who work for him also bake. And decorate, etc. He did not have to sully himself with GAY GAY GAY icing.

  • clay

    The DoJ brief conflates the wedding with the wedding reception; acknowledgement with endorsement with participation.
    Cake Baker also refuses Halloween cakes and cakes with alcohol (wha? Jesus’ wine’s not good enough?).

    It’s a weird brief– Phillips claims that couples can get cakes that aren’t custom-designed, and that (somehow) doesn’t require his “endorsement”, but not Halloween or gay wedding, because, even if it’s not custom-designed, that still infringes on his religious artistry. The DoJ brief like he’s trying to argue it both ways– he just doesn’t want to do anything special for them, and that he shouldn’t do anything for them, at all.

    • Gustav2

      So he orders the non-custom cakes in from another supplier?

      • It’s all about being treated as 2nd class citizens, Gustav, with our civil rights to free and unrestricted commerce being denied on the basis of someone else’s religious beliefs about how we should be required to live.

        • Gustav2

          I know, I’m just trying to get my head around their legal excuse.

      • clay

        It reads as though it’s the originality of the design. Custom-designed is done in conjunction with the client, not just pulled from a portfolio of designs he’s already come up with.

        • Gustav2

          I won the “artistic” argument with a conservative friend when I explained a painter could not decide who could buy a painting in a gallery open to the public, now they are trying to blow that argument out of the water.

          • clay

            I don’t trust Phillips or Secessions’ DoJ, since this narrow argument falls apart with his “No Halloween Cakes” rule. He’s either arguing on artistry (gay wedding), or he’s arguing on sale (Satanic Halloween)– they need to decide which it’s going to be.

          • Gustav2

            I have never, in all my years of catering, met a cake decorator who didn’t sit down with the clients and show previous work in a catalog to start the conversation.

            Most cakes are one from column A and one from column B and what are your colors? Want anything else special?

            They build from the catalog.

          • clay

            (if they’re smart)

          • Franciscan

            Sure, we can sell you a wedding cake, and it can be white or blue or green. It can have decorations like these in the catalog or we can design something. We realize (in most jurisdictions) that we sell the same cake to everybody. We don’t make a distinction based on the identity of the purchaser.

    • Stev84

      If providing services for a gay wedding is participation, then selling some a a murderer a gun is participating in murder

      • clay

        Yeah, but it’s not just selling, it’s also making.

        • wayne

          So the manufacturer of a gun used in a murder should also be liable.

    • The_Wretched

      It’s an attempt to get the wedding cake to be a ‘purdy shot gun’. You can’t demand specific performance for ‘art’. Even ‘artistic’ wedding cakes are still ordinary to those in the business. You’d have to be making a cake that sells in an art gallery (and isn’t just a custom cake) to get to that part of the law of contracts.

      • clay

        I’m not claiming it’s a winning argument, just that it’s the argument Jeffy’s making.

    • Friday

      The DOJ argument’s full of false equivalencies, no one can be forced to sell any ingredient they don’t want to already, they just can’t refuse to sell it to certain customers, I don’t have to offer ‘Halloween’ or ‘Good Friday’ designs if I don’t want to: if I do they have to be available to all customers in a public accommodation.

      If I don’t want to sell shrimp, it really doesn’t matter that I’m not in a religion that considers that ‘unclean,’ …I could be allergic or just not like to make it, doesn’t matter. Would just mean my store doesn’t sell shrimp.

  • Sam_Handwitch
    • They’ve missed the deadline to impose the Russia sanctions Congress passed months ago, due to be in place by October 1st.

      Honestly, when it comes time for the ACA enrollments to begin, I fully expect outright sabotage there.

      • The_Wretched

        More so than the non-advertising the enrollment window and closing the computers for ‘maintenance’ during the same?

      • billbear1961

        The racist Predator-in-chief, Mr. “Law-and-Order,” is breaking the law. No one does ANYTHING about it.

        The mighty Seekers after Truth in the “free” press, valiant Defenders of Democracy who “hold power accountable,” yawn.

        Where are the Democrats?? Writing emails, begging for donations to run in COMPROMISED elections. And the ones in office? An angry tweet or two, at most, and then . . . NOTHING.

        This is ALREADY a de facto banana republic.

        And the streets are QUIET.

  • Hank
    • Tomcat

      So basically, god grifts on Sundays.

    • Friday

      Might be why they feel entitled to stiff people on tips after church.

      • Snarkaholic

        And at all other hours of the day and night, too.

  • Tomcat

    Shouldn’t the racist bigot stay out of this fight because he is a racist bigot?
    I hope one day he is found with a young boy or a computer full of porn.
    It could happen.

  • So does this mean gay florists, bakers, and caterers can refuse to provide service to anyone who identifies as fundamentalist Christian?

    Because I sure as hell “don’t agree” with their marriages.

    • clay

      “Will your wedding vows include the word ‘obey’ for the bride?”

      • “Oh, you’ve been DIVORCED before? Nope, sorry. We don’t serve your kind here. That kind being hypocrites.”

    • Natty Enquirer

      Yes, but you must have sincerely-held religious beliefs that motivate your refusal. If the courts let this sham of “religious freedom” roll on, they will be signing up for an eternity of judging whose beliefs are sincere and whose are not.

      • clay

        (and Jeffy’s trying to remove the “sincerely held” part of that)

        • Franciscan

          “Religions” as opposed to “cults”. But that gets into dicey territory since doctrinaire evangelicals and Mormons regard the Catholic Church as a “cult”. And doctrinaire Catholics regard everything else as a “cult”. Whereas I regard all religions as “cults”.

      • Orly

        Exactly. Which religions are “real” religions, is certainly on their roadmap for the future as well.

    • Canadian Observer

      Nope, we can’t (at least not without the risk of being taken to court and losing). Adherents of all religions are considered (in theory at least) to be members of a protected class and therefore can’t be refused service on the basis of the class to which they belong – even if this means an adherent of one religions considers adherents of another to be heretics, pagans, apostates or whatever other terminology they want to employ. Even if we organized a big ole’ Church of Gay, we would still not be allowed to deny service because they were fundies. However, it would still be possible to refuse service if it was on the grounds that the individual was an unmitigated asshole provided we showed some evidence to that effect.

      • Snarkaholic

        You know how some store entrances have a sign: No shoes, no shirt, no service?
        Well, hang a sign that says: No tutu, feather boa, no service.

        • Robincho

          There was this café* on Main Street in Aspen. Once you got past their front door sign (“Sorry, We’re Open”) you saw the other sign that said “We Reserve The Right To Serve Refuse To Anyone.” good times…

          * name upon request

    • Karl Dubhe

      As good as that sounds, perhaps it’s best to tell them that we’re going to turn the other cheek. Since they’re not behaving like Christians, we will.

      What kind of drag shall we plan on wearing to our crucifixion? 🙂

      • Friday

        Nah, they tell all the abused people they convert that’s what they should do, no matter what. Even their own rules are only to hurt others over.

    • Orly

      Oh, no, no, no. Religion is a protected class in federal law. They can discriminate against us, but the reverse is not allowed.

      It’s a great ratcheting mechanism to preserve the power of religion (specifically the christian religion) in this country. That’s really the whole point of this exercise.

      Just think what it will be like if they could essentially overrule any law they don’t like. Guess I’ll need to create and/or “join” a religion so I can discriminate too. But unfortunately, not against other religions. Well, maybe Islam if this administration can manage to legalize that somehow.

      But even if they win, there will still be ways to respond, like non-discriminatory businesses displaying something like a “We serve everyone!” sticker on their stores and/or advertisements.

    • Paul

      The trick is to say you’re refusing service due to something unprotected such as sexuality.

      • RaygunsGoZap

        Exactly. But it’s not that they’re heterosexual either. It’s that they’re ugly and stupid.

    • Friday

      Most of the anti-LGBT laws and ‘exemptions’ they want only ‘protect’ people with specific anti-LGBT/Chistianist-aligned beliefs about marriage against others, not the other way around, even if you have other religious beliefs.

  • Gregory In Seattle

    Maybe it is time to just leave the US and move to a civilized country.

  • another_steve

    For the life of me I can’t imagine how the Supremes will be able to do the legal line-drawing required for a ruling in favor of the theofascist baker here.

    If, for example, I’m a fundamentalist Jewish merchant and my sincerely-held religious beliefs tell me that women should not be permitted to shop without a man being present, what possible line could the Supreme Court draw that would preclude my right to deny service to women but allow me to deny service to gay people?

    Anyone have a clue there?

    • AmeriCanadian

      It’s an extremely slippery slope without question. Time will tell if our “supreme” justices will have the fortitude to rule correctly or not.

    • The_Wretched

      Formally? none of the these cases makes since on the baker / xtian side.

      Informally, the only ones who will be allowed to discriminate are fundy xtians.

      • another_steve

        The Court will be ruling on the issue of “sincerely-held religious belief” – not on a particular religion’s right to deny service.

        The defendant here, and our current monstrous DOJ, won’t be arguing for Christians per se. They’ll be arguing for all those who hold these supposed “sincerely-held beliefs.”

        • AmeriCanadian

          Can’t wait for the Muslims to start using this ruling (if it goes the way I hope it doesn’t) to their benefit. It will be pure pandemonium.

          • another_steve

            Sing it Louise.

            Are the Supremes going to define what a “sincerely-held religious belief” is? If I’m a Satanist, are they going to rule that my religious beliefs are invalid/not at play?

            The more you think about this, the more absurd it gets.

    • Canadian Observer

      Very simply, under current American law “religion” (specifically adherents to a religion) are an enumerated, protected class – the LGBT communities are not. In Canada, our Supreme Court “read in” sexual orientation on the basis that the existing legislation which enumerated protected classes was deemed not to be exhaustive… however the strict constructionists that verge on making up a majority of the American Supreme Court will assert that if a class is not enumerated in the legislation they have no legal protections – that Civil Rights legislation has an exhaustive list of protected classes, and that until such time as the legislation (or Constitution) is amended members not mentioned in that list are, as the saying goes, shit out of luck.

      • another_steve

        If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this baker, I can’t imagine how a fundamentalist Muslim’s sincerely-held religious belief that women shouldn’t drive cars would not permit such a Muslim car dealer to refuse to sell cars to women.

        I’m not a lawyer. I might very well be missing something here.

        But I just can’t imagine how that car dealer would be precluded from that.

        • Canadian Observer

          More than likely that the Muslim car dealer would lose since (in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) sex (i.e. women) is explicitly listed as a protected class. The dealer would definitely lose if ERA had passed, but it is pretty safe to say that inclusion as a protected class under the federal Civil Rights Act would be sufficient to preclude the car dealer in that instance.

          • another_steve

            Yes, but isn’t it the job of the US Supreme Court to determine whether something – some action – is in compliance or not with the Constitution of the United States?

            The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of whether women are a protected class.

          • Canadian Observer

            That is why I said LIKELY to lose, rather than the car dealer would DEFINITELY lose. At the risk of sounding punny, there is a chance the Supremes might decide that religion (which appears in black and white in the constitution) trumps sex (which is only mentioned in federal legislation, not in the constitution itself). I just doubt they would want to go the place where the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act was questioned.

      • Friday

        The thing is under many state laws sexual orientation and gender identities, including straight and cis ones, *are* a protected class, that’s why the Christianists keep suing to try and get them overturned. (And the Christian Righties/Trumpists are doing their best to dismantle any precedents and policies where existing protections based on sex (including associated gender roles,) and the like, have been seen to apply to when the bigots want to say that LGBT people are defying ‘Christian-god-ordained places for the sexes.’

    • Mikey

      Stop! in the naaaame of law, before I break a fart.
      Think if over!

    • Franciscan

      Hypothetically, could a Macy’s clerk refuse to sell you a red dress, or could a waiter refuse to serve you shellfish because of their belief in Leviticus?

  • ETownCanuck

    I hope they botch the oral arguments so badly that they are basically laughed out of the building and I hope it results in the bigots getting screwed royally. This bullshit needs to come to an end once and for all.

    • clay

      If their oral arguments are as much a mess as their brief, the justices aren’t likely to allow them to speak more than one sentence at a time.

      • Cattleya1

        I read that as ‘a mess in their briefs’ – may be a better wording.

  • DisqusD37

    He needs to be swallowed by a giant snake and shat out, then set on fire on Trump’s door step.

  • Ninja0980

    If you don’t want to serve aspects of the public because it will interfere with your religious beliefs, don’t open a business that serves the public.

  • gaycuckhubby

    Fuck queer people who voted for Trump. Or Stein. Or Johnson. Or wrote in Bernie or Chelsea.
    Y’all own this too

    • Michael

      As opposed to those who supprted Clinton who was never out of the margin of error when it came to winning against Trump.

      So [email protected] you to those who insisted on betting on a losing horse.

      • gaycuckhubby

        I wasn’t talking about the nomination. Or who they supported early on. I’m talking about queer people who looked at the ballot on election day and decided to vote for anyone other than Clinton.

        • EdA

          Or to stay home and abdicate their responsibilities.

          • Franciscan

            Somewhere I read recently that Trump “won” with 20 something percent of the vote of eligible voters. That means millions of people didn’t weigh in. Your third-party voters are a paltry percentage of that vast number. So basically I’m tired of hearing this or that nominal group being blamed for the outcome of the election. We have to deal with the asshole who got put in the White House and the machine that put him there. There is a right-wing assault on all of us going on, that is going to be a problem regardless of who in particular is elected.

          • EdA

            People who don’t vote literally don’t count. These are people who DID vote and voted in effect to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

      • Dazzer

        She won more votes for the Presidency than any other white candidate in US history.

        It’s not that’s a loser – it’s the incredibly shabby electoral system you have.

        The sooner people like you learn about democracy, the better America – and the world – will be.

        • Michael

          Dude go preach to a choir. That version of Democracy might be in some fairy tale book but that’s not what we have in America so the sooner people like you close that book the sooner we can all start dealing with the version of Democracy we’re handed in America.

          • Dazzer

            I’m not American.

            If you want change, it’s up to you to fight for it.

            Even though my country voted for Brexit, I’m still going to fight it to the very last second.

      • EdA

        Are you seriously contending that Bernie would have won any of the slave states of the Confederacy, let alone most of them, even in a fair election?

      • MUELLER KNOWS

        Hey, ahole. You blew it. Now GFY.

        • evan_or

          You tell ‘im. I blocked him long ago. Delusional. I don’t want to hear the gas that passes his lips.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada
    • gaycuckhubby

      Not all boot licking is bad, Sir! 😉

      • Mikey

        when a white-supremacist is wearing them, however, yeah, it’s always bad.

        • gaycuckhubby

          Truth!

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        It is when insipid Homocons do it.

        • gaycuckhubby

          Well, anything insipid Homocons do is bad 🙂

    • JAKvirginia

      You say boot-licking but I think he’s aiming higher. *wink* No, don’t assk me. I’m not telling.

  • Mike C

    We don’t exactly have the best and brightest working in any branch of government right now so if the DOJ wants to go and send an attorney to make an ass out of themselves in front of RBG I’m more than willing to entertain that.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    But sessions decided to prosecute a trans – person’s murder so he costly can’t be anti -lgbt /s Says the homocons who will defend 45 if, and I’m pessimistically thinking when, SCOTUS rules for the bigots.

  • Reasonoverhate

    All we can do is put our faith in Kennedy and hope for the best!

    • Karl Dubhe

      Prepare for the worst. (by which I mean have plans to bug out somewhere, not arm yourself to the teeth.)

      • Reasonoverhate

        Fortunately I live in SoCal so I’m a little insulated from the craziness.

        • Franciscan

          You can’t rely on Kennedy or any other Supreme Court justice to do what we think is the right thing. You can’t rely on the Supreme Court. You have to make it hot for the enemies of democracy. Somehow. Multiple ways if possible.

  • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

    Let’s not forget that Sessions if vile on his own, but what a useful distraction to have decent people frothing at the mouth about how outrageous the administration testifying against equal protection under the law. No doubt Trump is delighted by the howling from the left.

    We’ll be too busy being outraged to discuss the budget that’s about to be rammed through. Who needs a mortgage deduction anyhow, amirite?

    The pace at which shit is going to be thrown is going to ramp up quickly, not just for cover for legislation and ending regulations (more radioactivity in water – Helen, you’re positively glowing, what IS your secret?), but also to deflect from Mueller likely getting closer to issuing indictments.

    • Franciscan

      Look, this administration is determined to pursue a right-wing, anti-democratic agenda against persons, races, demographic groups, and institutions that they do not favor. We need millions of people to open their mouths and complain. Setting opposition candidates against them, or suing them in court are more long-range, expensive alternatives. But I would venture that enough citizens opening their mouths and criticizing would give the administration and the right wing pause. They radically underestimate the numbers opposed to their schemes. If only people were sufficiently educated and sufficiently riled up to oppose them!

      • Franciscan

        Of course we have to protest against their environmental crimes as well. It’s all part of the anti-democratic agenda. You take away people’s right to vote, they have less clout in the political arena against your agenda to monopolize the commons, exploit the environment with no social responsibilites, etc., etc.

  • TexasBoy

    Sessions looks a lot like the Beverly Leslie character from Will & Grace.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oifkmM7CCvM

  • Secure

    It should be made very clear to everyone on social media and elsewhere which businesses choose to deny service to gay couples should the Christian bakers win this case. Wouldn’t this also give them to right to deny interracial couples based on their personal religious beliefs?

    • Orly

      Well, race is also a protected class like religion. So, no.

      They can discriminate against us without consequence, but not the other way around. That would be illegal. Sigh.

      Neat situation they’re trying to set up, for themselves at least.

      • Friday

        Their ‘religious objections’ often obviate *all* civil rights laws, including about race and sex, as long as the violator claims a justification from a claimed ‘religious belief about marriage being only being between a man and a woman.’ Or even more restrictive Christian wishlists about even *being* married, chaste till marriage, whatnot. They only claim it’s ‘just to get the gays’ even as they sell such laws and referenda to black Christians …laws whose texts say exactly otherwise.

      • leastyebejudged

        Well, this is partially true.

        We could simply use the same rights that they use to their advantage.

        Start a church. Get everyone enrolled. Buy up property. Do charitable things for our communities. Hold our local governments accountable. Stuff that they do.

        • Gretchen

          I have a younger brother who would make an amazing televangelist. We may as well act like a real church…”And the money kept rolling in from all sides.” Just for the sake of authenticity of course.

    • Canadian Observer

      No, that would violate the equal protection provisions under the 14th amendment – it would discriminate on the basis of race(s), and race confers protected class status in constitutional law since the adoption of the amendment.

    • Gianni

      Just common sense tells me that allowing people to pick and choose when, where, how, and against whom to discriminate based on their particular interpretation of their religious beliefs would open the country to literal anarchy with people defying any law that they feel constrains their individual religious practices as they apply to how they treat others in the public sphere. No need for those pesky anti-discrimination laws. Such a case as this clearly illustrates why the Congress refuses to amend the Civil Rights Law by including sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of protected categories. The fundies and evangelicals figured out that the best way to legalize this particular desired discrimination was to pit the 1st Amendment of the Constitution against the 14th Amendment requirements of equal protection for all citizens under the law. Hence a SCOTUS case to make a final and definitive decision on where to draw the line between freedom of religious “practice” and the protection of all citizen rights to not face discrimination in the public sphere. One can only hope that the scumbags get the shit they enjoy handing out rubbed right back in their faces.

  • David L. Caster

    To hell with this little shit.

    Let’s just hope that SCOTUS continues in its tradition of upholding non-discrimination laws.

  • Gretchen

    Allowing a public business to refuse to provide service because two citizens are entering into a civil contract in which the owner disapproves of the gender of one of the contract signatories sounds very much like sex discrimination to me regardless of the grounds. I just have to believe Kennedy won’t let that happen, and we should be able to count on Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

    • leastyebejudged

      If they did actually lack the jurisprudence to outright reject this, then we should systemically work together to take advantage of it.

      It would not be all that difficult to make them rue the day.

      • JAKvirginia

        If I were a Supreme Court judge.

        “Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, the Court agrees with your side. Today, it’s a cake. What’s next? A hotel room? Purchasing a car? If the Court were to agree, what part of an everday, normal life could not be allowed LGBTQ people because of religious beliefs? And how is that not in conflict with the most basic principle of our Constitution of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”

        • leastyebejudged

          Those are good questions to ask. I’d add “if you can deny services based on your religious objections to private contracts between private individuals, what makes you think you’re the only ones that will be permitted to do so ? Are you good with services being denied to you for the same reasons ? How would this natural outcome benefit society in any way ?”

          • JAKvirginia

            I was going to add something like that but hesitated. Thank you for completing my thought.

            In truth, though, I grimace imagining what gobbledygook answers might be offered to our questions. They would strain my patience to the limit, I’m sure. I would be Snarknado.

          • Franciscan

            The next thing to come would be a hospital (Catholic-run of course) that refused to allow a patient near death to be visited by his or her same-sex partner (or spouse!), because of the “religious belief” of the institution. Because in Hobby Lobby the Court (illegitimately) held that corporate bodies could have religious opinions. Well, this would just take us back to the days before Obergefell and other cases on gay rights.

          • Duck

            That has all ready happened.

  • Gretchen

    One last thought: If all else fails, I will volunteer to be your prophetess, and we can hammer out our holy book as the Church of Joe. I’m fairly sure we can agree on some tenets that will leave the haters eating Walmart cake.

    • joe ho

      Join the Satanic Temple.

      They’re already suing the state of Iowa over their new restrictive abortion laws saying they violate their religious beliefs.

      And, no, they don’t really believe in Satan.

      https://thesatanictemple.com/

      • Gretchen

        My poor grandmother would be apoplectic. She’s 84, so give me a few years. I’ve tried going to the local Humanist meeting, but it’s run by some very trying folks. I have my online minister license just in case anyone wants an impromptu wedding, so I’m all ready to step up to lead a flock into perdition.

        • joe ho

          The Satanic Temple is doing very important work to fight against Christian Dominionism. When a state or city govt. wants to put up a 10 Commandments monument, they file to put up a statue of Baphomet. When public schools are allowing after-school Christian clubs, they demand to start up Satan for Kids clubs. They’ve threatened to make any bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake, make a cake praising Satan instead..

          Like the Freedom From Religion Foundation–which brings many law suits against school districts and local governments that are caught promoting Christianity– they’re worth supporting.

          • Gretchen

            I have been following their work. It’s impressive. I read Hemant Mehta at the Friendly Atheist pretty regularly and follow on Twitter. He does a good job covering them. Thanks for sharing about their mission!

  • JCF

    “on both sides”

    The Motto of this administration.*

    * Which is a lie: they only care about the Fascist side!

  • Henry Auvil

    You know where this is going. Once the Supreme Court hears oral arguments against LGBT rights, anal arguments are next.

  • teedofftaxpayer

    I’m hoping the same five who voted for SSM will vote in favor of us in this matter as well. If not then we go back to the 50’s & 60’s when there were signs on the doors, except instead of “White Only” it will say “straight only”.

  • fuow

    My anger (fury!) at my FELLOW gay men who either stayed home or voted ‘Green’ to teach me and my fellow Democrats a lesson is bottomless.Thanks to you asswipes, my civil rights are in jeopardy, my husband’s rights are in jeopardy and my child’s rights are in jeopardy.
    I hope, when the fucking christer assholes come for us, they get you first.

  • Chris Gardner

    Man, I’m not one to hurl expletives at others but fuck that racist bastard Sessions, fuck his boss Trump, and most of all fuck all those Log Cabin Republicans. You LCRs are all traitors to the LGBT community. If they were loading gay people onto trains to concentration camps, the LCRs would be collaborators to the very end.

    • Snarkaholic

      Then they’d fight the other passengers for window seats.

  • OdieDenCO

    by your logic jeffy, christians can refuse service to the sons of ham. that is plain raciest bigotry. fuck off you sawed off bigot.

  • Strepsi

    Called it years ago… the Republican party is trying to ROLL BACK THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

  • Ann Kah

    Jeff still looks like a small boy sitting on a stack of phone books, knowing he is in deep trouble but not really understanding why.

  • Grumpy Old Man
  • Falconlights

    If Phillips prevails in this case, this could potentially strike down any provision for LGBT people in accommodation laws across the country.

  • leastyebejudged

    I’m good with them making their arguments in court.

    And with the court ruling against them, again.

  • TrollopeReader

    ahhhhhhhh

  • fahvel

    an individuals religious rights, when used to impose crap on others, is not religion. It is simple ignorant hatred coupled with pious mumbling noises from the anal orifice.

  • Fred L Anthony

    I am thinking Sessions getting the DOJ involved will only bring more support to the LBGT commnunity and destroy the bigoted bakers claim Way to Go DOJ

  • lymis

    The courts have got to make a distinction between being forced to participate personally in acts that violate one’s own religious beliefs and getting to pick and choose which clients and customers you want to serve because you disapprove of what they do that doesn’t involve you.

    And between being forced to produce a particular product or service and choosing who you get to sell it to.

    I would support a baker who doesn’t want to produce sexually explicit cakes, just because some customers want them for bachelor or bachelorette parties. I don’t support a baker who DOES produce them declaring that they’ll only sell them to straight people. Or those idiots in Baltimore who routinely sold rainbow cupcakes to the local churches, but refused to sell them to the local Gay-Straight Alliance.

    I would support an Orthodox Jew who runs a deli refusing to carry pork products, but not one who chooses to sell pork product to some customers but not to others.

    If you’d sell the exact same cake to someone for a straight wedding, then your religious beliefs don’t prevent you from producing the cake or exchanging it for money. What your customer uses it for is none of your business, and not subject to your own religious beliefs.

    I honestly have some sympathy for people who DO “participate” in the event, like caterers. I’m glad I don’t have to write or adjudicate the laws to cover it, but there’s a difference catering a graduation party and catering an orgy. There are going to be specific situations that require nuance, but “I won’t sell it to you here in my shop for you to carry away because I disapprove of your event” or worse, “because I disapprove of YOU” is not one of them.

    • Reality.Bites

      But it’s not grad vs orgy. It’s graduation at from a Jewish school versus a Catholic school, or a straight orgy versus a lesbian orgy.

  • DesertSun59

    People are completely losing sight of the reason why this went to the SCOTUS in the first place.

    CO had, on the books, a STATE law outlining the definition of discrimination at the LOCAL level regarding business transactions. This baker violated STATE law. Period.

    The law was doing perfectly well until which time a CHRISTIAN decided that their Bronze Age belief system is superior to the secular law in the state where they do business.

    If the US adopts any sort of discriminatory policy regarding WHO someone will be doing business with you will watch the complete collapse of how ‘free trade’ (not Free Trade) is done within the 50 states within a decade.

  • Blackfork

    They want people to believe that christianity is not just a religion, but also a steamroller to use against people you refuse to try to understand.

  • Blake Jordan

    Anyone who was allowed to vote in 2016, and did anything but vote for Sec. Clinton shares the blame equally for this!!!!

  • Al Prazolam

    What’s wrong with these Log Cabin Republicans? They remind me of the kapos (Funktionshäftling), the prisoner functionaries, in Nazi concentration camps that supervised the forced labor of their fellow Jews.