In a landmark 7-2 ruling (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor against), the Supreme Court has thrown out a finding that a Colorado baker illegally discriminated when he refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., declined to make a cake for the wedding celebration of two gay men in 2012. Phillips told the couple that he would make a birthday cake but could not make a cake that would promote same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs.
And then the lawsuit began… (via Fox News)
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
December 2013
Judge Robert Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts decided — in line with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) — that the bakeshop had violated a Colorado law which prohibits businesses from refusing service due to a person’s sexual orientation.
Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed the decision.
May 2014
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided at a public hearing that Masterpiece had violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA.
Phillips was ordered to change its company policies as well as offer “comprehensive staff training” to employees. The cake shop was also required to provide quarterly reports about how it handled prospective customers.
August 2015
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Phillips cannot cite his religious beliefs in his refusal to provide a service to same-sex couples.
With the ruling, Phillips could face a penalty if he continues to deny wedding cakes to same-sex couples.
April 2016
The Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from Phillips.
July 2016
On behalf of Phillips, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit, petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case.
“We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living,” ADF senior counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement at the time.
June 2017
The Supreme Court agreed to consider the case during its next term, which began in the fall.
And now, The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Colorado baker.
As The Hill reports, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution when it forced Jack Phillips to make a cake for a same-sex wedding he morally opposed under the state’s public accommodations law.
“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views in some instances protected forms of expression,” the court said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy also pointed to one commissioner’s comments that religion had been used to justify slavery and the Holocaust and that invoking religion to hurt others is “despicable.”
Additionally, in his majority opinion, Kennedy wrote that the issue “must await further elaboration.”
Full Decision below
* * *
Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.
Is this the start of the end of the politically-correct, social-justice-warrior era? We highly doubt it. As a reminder, in April, a judge ruled that a bar was well within its right to kick out Trump supporters, and of course, the Oakland coffee shop that has refused to allow policemen in uniform to enter.
Any bisness or person has a perfect right (duty) to do as they please. We do not need any court to make that desision for us.
Also, the definition of gay is to be happy and carefree. The word has nothing to do with sodamites,faggotts and other sick behavior.
The left loves to hijack words to make their perversions seem acceptable.
Same as ‘marriage’ – its base meaning is a combination of 2 or more elements – not the same element. And then the government schools indoctrinate children that this is normal.
Needed a Supreme case to get to this point. Most likely will be refined down the road but a great win for business,
Celebrating this landmark decision, the Colorado baker will be offering NORMAL (non-homo) couples the following wedding cake at half price.
[img
[/img]
stucky,
did you just whip up that cake for the occasion?
Stop it, too funny.
The alarm’s standards album cover always reminds me of a gay wedding cake.
A Muslim baker would have just lit the gay couple on fire and be done with it.
Or stone them 🙂
Take a look at the two faggots who wanted the cake:
Which one is Kneel and which one is Bob? Ewooooooo!
Nobody said the the muslims are *all* bad. If they’d just stop raping children and livestock. . . .
so there, fucking sodomites
instead of running it up the flagpole, stick the flagpole up your ass
I understand that we all are loathe to have government interference in our lives.
I understand the appeal of Jack Lovett’s comment about the owner of a business being free to choose to whom a sale is made.
Nevertheless, I wonder where this will lead? I don’t ask this because I am pro or anti gay … because that’s irrelevant. I just wonder where it stops. Quick example; you wear a Trump hat … and get refused service. Are you OK with that? If you support the Supreme Court decision, then you (logically) MUST be OK with being denied service.
Where does it stop? Here is the logical progression. Jews won’t serve Muslims. Muslims won’t serve Christians. Christians won’t serve atheists. Atheists won’t serve Odin worshipers. And eventually RiNS dies of starvation.
R.I.P. RiNS
Seriously, isn’t this ruling a potential clusterfuck in terms of unintended consequences??
It was against his religious belief. I don’t believe you can use religious belief to deny service to someone wearing a MAGA hat.
Dude, you’ve seen the “Q Anon” true believers in action. I think it qualifies as a religion for some people.
No, not really. The right to refuse service has always existed – it is being attacked in the name of identity politics.
Follow the thread: refusing service to blacks (racism), refusing service to gays due to religious belief (LGBT discrimination).
The difference now is that religious belief is juxtaposed against LGBT rights.
Of course, I foresee cases involving Aryan beliefs coming soon.
It is truly ridiculous to sue a baker to bake a cake.
I don’t wear a MAGA hat because I’d probably get my throat slit here in Minneapolis, but being denied service because of a MAGA hat is actually a great indicator to me of where I don’t want to spend my money. I’d just move on to merchant who’s MAGA-friendly. So, yeah, freedom of association extends even to commie fags.
Progs gotta progress. They never get to their destination. It’s never enough.
“… Seriously, isn’t this ruling a potential clusterfuck in terms of unintended consequences??”
If that was true, why weren’t there any issues when I was young (I’m 61). Back then, businesses always “reserved the right to refuse service to anyone”. Many had signs saying just that. IMO, people seem to figure things out and get along just fine without the government regulating every single aspect of their existence.
These “laws” are supposed to be there to PREVENT THE STATE from discriminating … private individuals can discriminate all they want … excepting employment for some protected categories.
But why should some categories get special protection?? FREEDOM doesn’t come with a qualifier (other than directly harming or defrauding someone).
I believe anyone and their business can serve they choose to or deny any they choose to.I will say may affect bottom line,but,tis your business.I will say all must be served whether you agree with em or not as far as govt. services for CITIZENS,then tis all our monies at the table.Private business,hire and serve whom you please,freedom.
If someone doesn’t want to do business with me for any reason, I recognize their right to do it and go elsewhere.
If someone approves of me they approve of me and if they don’t they don’t, the purpose of my life is not to win a popularity contest.
The “Stucky Cake” is a laugh riot. That said, if I am in the business of selling cake, I do not care if a fruit wants one with two groom statuettes on it. I just want him and everybody else to buy my cakes.
R.I.P.
lol
That bit would be a great stand alone article. I might try and take that one for a spin… if I can find the motivation. Weather has been good these days….
Soooo I guess there ain’t nothin’ to worry about as us Odin worshipers will be last ones in line…
We’ll know for the first time
If we’re evil or divine
We’re the last in line yeah
We’re the last in line oh
Yeah
Saw this earlier today on Zerohedge and immediately went over to CNN to get their take. They were doing their best trying to spin this as no big deal when it really is. Might be just a minor setback for Post Modern agenda but a win is a win. As for the daisy chain of unintended consequences well as far as it matters anyone running a business should be able to do whatever they want with their stuff. The problem with agenda of left is they use coercion instead of negotiation to change the social contract. The whole thing was a put up by these two fucken’ twats anyways. They knew damn well that this guy wasn’t going to bake a cake for them. They just did it to get the thugs at HR Commission to go heavy on the cake shop. It backfired and that is glorious!
Yours in Odin,
RiNS
The “where will this lead” speculation is always dubious, and generally leads to increasingly unlikely scenarios that in real life will never occur.
But fine. Let’s turn it around. Would a holding in favor of the gay couple mean that a Muslim bakery would be required to create Christmas cookies? Or that a Jewish print shop owner could be ordered to print signs that say “Death to Israel”?
Turning to your examples, I’m pretty sure that no Christian owner of an auto parts store will refuse to sell a quart of oil to an atheist. If it happens, the court can deal with it then.
The baker is not selling a cake, but a creative process that involves his own creative skills. Stucky’s lovely offering notwithstanding nevertheless, since his creative process celebrates a ritual he believes to be sacred vow between man and woman in the presence of the Lord, there was never any real desire to buy one of his cakes. The whole thing was a LGBT targeted attempt to take down a conservative small business owner. It teaches other assholes with enlarged/stretched assholes how to make trouble for people who stand on principle.
This baker had enormous financial difficulty from the situation, I believe. Is he still in business now, YEARS later?
Where does it stop?
It stops when people recognize they’re not entitled to a cold plate of dog shit
I don’t have a problem with shopkeepers refusing to serve me, and I expect them to understand it if I don’t use their services – FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. Freedom of association implies freedom of DISASSOCIATION – to everybody but a liberal.
Look, if you hate me I don’t want to do business with you. You have whatever reason you choose, and no one owns anyone else. If you’re the only mechanic in a hundred miles and I break down traveling, well, I just have to figure something out – probably alternate transportation back home, and a return expedition to recover the broken vehicle. If you’re a baker, one of hundreds for twenty miles around, I have no reason to worry if you don’t want my business.
The real story, that MSM won’t report, is that this gay couple lived far away from the baker and WENT LOOKING FOR A CHRISTIAN they could “make an example” of. The baker did not go looking for a gay couple to discriminate against – THEY WENT TO HIM, bypassing lots of bakers to persecute him. THAT’S a mindset this country could well do without.
1st thing stucky,
rins is probably gonna die of starvation anyway because he’s gonna go blind if he doesn’t quit what he’s doing,so he won’t be able to find food —
as far as discrimination goes,the right to free association should rule–
the only thing that should not be tolerated is violence or threats of violence–
for example,a few years ago in a small town se of tampa a guy was out working in his yard,which was next door to a house that was for sale– a real estate agent showed up to the house w/a black couple and he went over & told them if they bought the house he would burn it down–
they left but a few days later another agent showed the house to a different black couple & the guy ran his mouth again,only this time the “buyers” were federal agents–
he got sent to a federal prison,which he probably deserved–
Not blind yet! See Red, I have a plan. As long as I switch it up and pull to other side once in a while.. It be workin’… so far.
I most definitely agree with the Supreme Court decision. But I wonder “why the fook it got that far?” Ginsberg is just and old mentally addled 60’s dippy hippy. Sotomeyer is another case altogether. Sotomeyer does not belong on the bench of the Supreme Court much less any Federal court, it’s not that she is two card short of a full deck, it’s that she doesn’t know what cards are to begin with. -30-
Look at those two filthy, diseased homos! Tell me they are not genetically damaged mutants! In a sane country they would be flogged and locked in a cage. I have had it with faggotry and fruitism.
They both B joos. Over represented are we?
I have a number of gay friends, all of whom celebrated mightily and publicly the day gay marriage became legal. Funny thing is, since that day, I haven’t received a single invitation to a gay wedding.
Radical fags (maybe 2%) want you to do things against your will and conscience.
Regular fags (maybe 98%) just want to be left alone.
The 2% are largely seen as an embarrassment by the 98%.
Same goes for feminists, though there are pretty much all radicals.
These anti-discrimination laws actually violate the 13th Amendment. That is the fundamental issue here. The State claims unlimited power to subject you to involuntary servitude.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
[img
[/img]
That is funny
2 dissenting judges?
but at least there is some justice in the US,.
To the same extent that no one should decide how a business runs its affairs, NO GOVERNMENT should be allowed to set up any barriers to commerce by requiring anyone to BEG them for permission to sell THEIR private property or labor/services to another. Because that is exactly what a business license is – being forced to beg the government for permission to voluntarily exchange your property or labor with another willing, voluntary participant in the exchange. By setting up this system, government has essentially turned every business into ITS business or its slaves by all rights. People like to claim that by getting a business license you are saying you will abide by these laws, but one cannot operate a business legally without the business license – a Catch 22 of enslavement that nobody should face.
Yes, everyone should be able to do business or NOT do business with whomever they wish. For the most part, 99% of all transactions will happen, and when they don’t, it is most certainly the right of the denied customer to let others know that they were refused service, and to start up a competitive business to cater to whomever they wish. Today, as in the past, government has stood as a barrier to this freedom of competition. This is especially true of competitive black businesses. In fact, many laws that FORCED segregation or denied service to blacks, were as much a violation of the rights of the business owners who simply didn’t care and would have been fine serving blacks. These laws were also the actions of a violent and freedom-hating government.
Freedom works. It must be restored 100%. If someone doesn’t want you as a customer (MAGA hat or not), wouldn’t you rather know in advance, then have them deliver substandard service, an extra quantity of spit with your food, etc.??
Mr. Liberty has the last word. Keep it simple. Shylock supports Mr. Liberty.
from the Merchant of Venice
SHYLOCK
Nay, take my life and all. Pardon not that.
You take my house when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house. You take my life
When you do take the means whereby I live.
[img
[/img]