Supreme Court Sides with No-Cakes-for-Gays Baker, Noting Anti-Religion ‘Hostility’

A married gay man carries the US and rainbow flags © Lucy Nicholson / Reuters

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Christian baker from Colorado who, on religious grounds, had refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. It declared that the case against the baker violated his religious rights.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices said that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown “impermissible hostility” toward religion when it found that the baker, Jack Phillips, violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake the requested cake.

The justices did not, however, clarify whether a cake is the type of expressive act protected as free speech by the First Amendment. Nor did they issue a ruling on the specific circumstances under which people may seek exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

The ruling was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also authored the 2015 ruling to legalize gay marriage nationwide. Despite his pro-gay marriage judicial work, Kennedy is a staunch advocate for free speech and religious freedom.

Two of the Supreme Court’s four liberal justices sided with their five conservative colleagues to deliver the verdict. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting voices.

The gay couple at the center of the story, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were married legally in Massachusetts, but wanted the cake baked for their wedding reception in Colorado in 2012. While gay marriage was not legal in Colorado at the time, the state’s anti-discrimination laws included sexual orientation as a protected category, allowing the couple to file a complaint.

While the justices ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips, some media outlets downplayed the clarity of the decision. NBC, Reuters, Politico and NPR all called the court’s decision “narrow.” While this may technically be in reference to the fact that the judges’ decision was specific to this particular case, conservatives saw it as proof of a biased media working against them.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) meanwhile called the decision “a major victory for religious liberty.”

That could be an overstatement, but at least the decision was right and the insight into anti-Christian hostility is right-on. It is obvious in so many areas, such as the comments below, and in the media bias that all except those hostile to Christianity can see, which includes MainStream Media (MSM). 

This is obvious from the very title of this article out of RT. The 'No-Cakes-for-Gays Baker' line is completely false as the bakers did not refuse the customers because they were gay, but because they wanted to celebrate a gay wedding. Had there been another theme to the cake, there would have been no problem. 

This is typical of the 'slant' MSM puts on things in order to dress-up their far-left ideologies and make-fun of Christian values. They don't realize they are making fun of God. Of course, they don't believe in God, as though that makes any difference in His existence, or His pending judgment.

Some progressives, on the other hand, were unhappy with the ruling. Wisconsin Democrat Cathy Myers said that the decision will only embolden other “bigoted bakers,” (Hmmm. No hostility there.) while writer Robert Sandy said that the decision gave Phillips license to be a “homophobic a**hole.”

If he didn't have that right, Mr Sandy, you might not have the right to call him such immature names.

Anyway, congratulations SCOTUS on getting it right.

Baker's Refusal to Make Same-Sex Wedding Cake now Before U.S. Supreme Court

War on Christianity - American Front

Two major battles happening in the Supreme Courts of America and Canada.

It's time to pray people!

Thomson Reuters 

The U.S. Supreme Court justices including Anthony Kennedy, front row second from left, are hearing arguments in the case of whether certain businesses can refuse service to gay couples if they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

The U.S. Supreme Court appears closely divided in the case of a Christian baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, with likely pivotal vote Justice Anthony Kennedy posing tough questions, including whether a Colorado civil rights commission that ruled on the issue was unduly biased against religion.

The nine justices heard arguments in Washington on whether certain businesses can refuse service to gay couples if they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

The case concerns an appeal by Jack Phillips, a baker who runs Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood. A state court had ruled that Phillips's refusal violated a Colorado anti-discrimination law.

Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the court's four liberals in major cases, raised concerns about issuing a ruling siding with the baker that would give a green light to discrimination against gay people.

He mentioned the possibility of a baker putting a sign in his window saying he would not make cakes for gay weddings and wondering if that would be "an affront to the gay community."

But citing comments made by a commissioner on the state civil rights panel that ruled against the baker, Kennedy said there was evidence of "hostility to religion" and questioned whether that panel's decision could be allowed to stand.

Hostility to religion, ya think?

In one of the biggest cases of the conservative-majority court's nine-month term, the justices must decide whether the baker's action was constitutionally protected, meaning he can avoid punishment under the Colorado law.

Phillips, represented by the conservative Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that law violated his rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the Constitution's First Amendment. The Supreme Court arguments focused on his free speech claim, based on the idea that creating a custom cake is a form of free expression.

Baker Jack Phillips contends the 2015 landmark gay marriage law violated his rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the U.S. Constitution. (Associated Press)

'Licence to discriminate'

The couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, call the baker's refusal a simple case of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has argued that Phillips's legal team is advocating for a "licence to discriminate" that could have broad repercussions beyond gay rights.

Several of the justices asked questions that suggested they are concerned about how far a ruling in favour of the baker might extend. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wondered whether a hairstylist, chef or a makeup artist could refuse service, claiming their services are also speech protected by the Constitution.

"Why is there no speech in creating a wonderful hairdo?" Kagan asked.

Let me explain this, Justice Kagan. A hairdo does not normally express ones sexuality. It is roughly equivalent to the baker refusing to sell the couple an already prepared cake or a newly created cake that does not reflect gay marriage. That's not what you are discussing. I hope you can see the difference.

Kennedy said many examples of other businesses that were implicated involved free speech rights. He asked U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the Trump administration lawyer who backed the baker, what would happen if the court rules for the baker and bakers nationwide then started receiving requests to not bake cakes for gay weddings.

"Would the government feel vindicated?" Kennedy asked.

"...receiving requests to not bake cakes for gay weddings?" Are you serious? 

Conservative members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared more sympathetic to the baker.

The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a landmark 2015 ruling written by Kennedy, one of the court's five conservatives. The 81-year-old Kennedy, who has joined the court's four liberals in major decisions on issues, such as abortion and gay rights, could cast the deciding vote. Kennedy also is a strong proponent of free speech rights.

A ruling favouring Phillips could open the door for businesses that offer creative services to spurn gay couples by invoking religious beliefs, as some wedding photographers, florists and others already have done. Conservatives have filed other lawsuits also seeking to limit the reach of the 2015 gay marriage ruling.

The Denver couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, call the baker's refusal a simple case of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. (David Zalubowski/Associated Press)

Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the dispute rallied outside the white marble courthouse. Supporters of Phillips waved signs that read, "We got your back Jack." As Mullins and Craig made their way into the courthouse, the two men led their supporters in chants of "Love Wins."

The case highlights tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians who oppose same-sex marriage, as illustrated in comments made by demonstrators on Tuesday.

"Religious liberty is the most important right we have been given in the Constitution, and this case exemplifies it," said Paula Oas, 64, a Maryland resident. "I believe Jack is not harming others."

Sherrill Fields, 67, a gay Virginia resident, said she feared that if the court sides with the baker, different types of businesses will turn away gay customers.

"This kind of thing will come out of the woodwork," Fields said. "People and businesses of all sorts will deny us service. Restaurants, hairdressers, doctors, tow truck drivers, anybody that provides a service."

This is amazing!

The legal fight broke out in 2012 when Phillips told Mullins and Craig that due to his Christian beliefs, he would not be able to make a cake to celebrate their wedding.

The two men married in Massachusetts, but wanted to celebrate their nuptials with friends in Colorado. At the time, Colorado allowed civil unions but not marriage between same-sex couples.

Now I'm really confused! It was illegal to have a same-sex wedding in Colorado in 2012, so how can a baker be sanctioned for refusing to make a wedding cake for an event celebrating something that was illegal at the time? 

How is it that it got past the Court of Appeals? And why didn't the Colorado Supreme Court put an end to this farce? The US Supreme Court should have tossed this case out in 5 minutes!

The couple turned to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a complaint on their behalf, saying Phillips had violated Colorado state law barring businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Phillips had violated the law and ordered him to take remedial measures including staff training and the filing of quarterly compliance reports. In August 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals also ruled against Phillips.

The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case, prompting Phillips to appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jimmy Carter Brands US ‘Oligarchy’ & Urges Trump to Sign N. Korea Peace Treaty

Corruption - American style

As mentioned in yesterday's article, corruption is everywhere.

It is most obvious in 3rd world countries but is none-the-less

prevalent in leading countries; it is simply more sophisticated.

Former US President Jimmy Carter said the US works more like an "oligarchy than a democracy," while also lambasting Trump's “hopeless” approach to solving the Israel-Palestine issue, and the increasing tension with North Korea.

Oligarchy - Deep State - is there any real difference?

Unlimited political bribery

The former president was speaking at a ‘Conversation with the Carters’ event at his Carter Center in Atlanta on Tuesday. He said money in politics is what makes the US more like an oligarchy – run by a small group of rich people – rather than a democracy, AP reports.

This isn’t the first time the 39th president has made such comments. In 2015, he referred to the “unlimited political bribery” that has “created a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.”

"A complete subversion of our political system"

Carter was referring to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling to allow corporations to give unlimited campaign donations to political candidates, which he has previously said was “the most stupid decision” the court had made.

I'm not sure 'stupid' is the right term, I would have chosen something more sinister.

North Korea

On escalating tensions between the US and North Korea, Carter said, “The first thing I would do is treat the North Koreans with respect.”

“I know what the North Koreans want,” he said. “What they want is a firm treaty guaranteeing North Korea that the US will not attack them or hurt them in any way, unless they attack one of their neighbors.” Carter said, “But the United States has refused to do that.”

Carter said he would send his top person to Pyongyang immediately, adding: “If I didn’t go myself.” The former president visited North Korea three times between 1994 and 2011.

"Until we're willing to talk to them and treat them with respect as human beings, which they are, then I don't think we'll make any progress," he said.

Middle East

Meanwhile, Carter said he doesn’t think that Trump can bring peace between Israel and Palestine.

"I don’t think Trump or his family members are making any progress in that respect," he said, adding he is “practically hopeless” that Trump will do anything to give “justice to the Palestinians.”

Carter criticized both Israeli and Palestinian leaders for failing to be flexible, but said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “no intention at all of having a two-state solution.”

Is he suggesting the Abbas and Hamas are willing to have a two-state solution? Both want nothing less than the annihilation of Jews from the Holy Land. They annihilated them from North Africa and most Arab countries early in the 20th century, and are waiting breathlessly for the opportunity to annihilate them from Israel. Carter, for all his wisdom cannot see that. 

Biggest Abortion Case in Decades Leaves Supreme Court Divided

Police keep watch as protesters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on the morning that the court took up a major abortion case in Washington March 2, 2016 © Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

The US Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over a Texas law placing tough new restrictions on abortion providers that would potentially shut down all but nine or 10 clinics across the entire state.

The justices appeared to be closely divided on the merits of the case, and with the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the possibility is there that the court will not be able to reach a majority decision. If it remains deadlocked in a 4-4 vote, the Texas law would remain on the books, thanks to a lower court ruling in favor of the legislation. However, the case would not establish a national precedent.

Essentially, the law mandates that any doctor performing abortions also have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic they work in, so that they could deliver patients there in the event of an emergency. The law also requires clinics to upgrade their standards to meet those of an ambulatory surgical center.

The number of abortion clinics in Texas has already shrunk from 40 to 18 as a result of the law. If the restrictions are upheld by the high court, it is expected that another eight or nine will shutter their doors, and that other states would try to implement similar legislation.

Outside the Supreme Court, hundreds of pro-life and pro-choice activists gathered to support abortion rights. Pro-choice advocates held up signs and pushed the justices to strike down the regulations.

One speaker argued that anti-choice supporters were using "under handed schemes to take women's rights away."

Elsewhere, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan made a brief appearance to meet with pro-life protesters. Some women who participated held signs reading, "I am a prolife feminist."

During Wednesday’s hearing, the four liberal justices expressed opposition to the law, Reuters reported. Opponents have argued that the regulations impose an “undue burden” on women, making it more difficult for them to seek out an abortion while doing little to make the procedure safer.

The conservative bloc of the court, meanwhile, questioned whether the rules have actually forced as many clinics to close as pro-choice activists claim. Supporters of the law have argued that the regulations are intended to improve safety standards for women and protect their health.

As is often the case, the fate of the law rests largely in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Although he is a conservative, he has frequently voted with liberals in the past. On Wednesday, he said Texas would experience a “capacity problem” if more clinics close, USA Today reported. Additionally, he cited the fact that more women have been receiving surgical abortions rather than medication-induced ones as a result of the law.

"This may not be medically wise," he said, as trends around the US are leaning increasingly towards medication.

If Kennedy rules with the liberals to strike down the law, then other abortion restrictions across the US may also come into the crosshairs. Various states have tried to impose mandates such as 24-hour waiting periods.

However, Kennedy also expressed interest in the idea of sending the case back down to the lower courts so that they could study the law’s effects more closely. More research would determine whether abortion clinics are actually closing because of the new regulations, as well as whether the clinics that would remain could realistically attend to the needs of the state’s women.

Close to 2 million women would live more than 50 miles away from the nearest abortion clinic should the law take effect, according to the Guardian. Some 750,000 would be more than 200 miles away.

Since the landmark Roe v. Wade case protected the right to abortion in 1973, the Supreme Court has ruled that any regulations on the procedure cannot create an “undue burden” on women. As pro-life supporters have failed to block abortion in general, they have recently begun placing more limits on clinics and doctors, leaving the courts to decide whether they qualify as burdensome.

Alabama Attorney Sues SCOTUS Justices Who Legalized Gay Marriage

Did 5 Supreme Court justices violate two constitutional amendments

 and their oaths of office?

John Sullivan (C) and Chris McCary (R), both from Anniston, Alabama, are married by Justice of the Peace Joan Drysdale (L) in Provincetown, Massachusetts. © Brian Snyder / Reuters

A lawyer from Bessemer, Alabama has filed a $6 million lawsuit against the five US Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. He is claiming they violated two constitutional amendments and their oaths of office.

Family law attorney Austin Burdick filed the lawsuit Wednesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, naming Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Burdick is suing the five associate justices for violations of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and for violating their oaths of office. He is also claiming compensatory damages, punitive damages and mental anguish damages totaling more than $6 million.

"For centuries the Constitution has been the instrument of protection for the rights of citizens against government intrusion," Burdick said in the lawsuit. “Specifically, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, [the Supreme Court] interpreted the plain language of the Constitution and that amendment to be a guarantee of freedom from government interference in individual liberty.”

In June, the five justices sided with the plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges, with the resulting Supreme Court verdict mandating that same-sex marriage was legal nationwide.

"This 'interpretation' is no interpretation at all. It is a tyrannical usurpation of authority to rewrite the Constitution," Burdick said in his lawsuit. By making such a ruling, he argued, the five justices rewrote the 14th Amendment to expand government authority, rather than restrict it.

"The opinion in fact rewrites the 14th Amendment to read: 'Every state must make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; further, each state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law under the guise of extending tax benefits or some other license; and any person within its jurisdiction may be deprived of the equal protection of the laws when it is fashionable to do so’,” Burdick wrote.

This should be fun to watch. But who is going to hear the suit? Can a district court apply a law suit to the Supreme Court? And if they lose, can the Supreme Court justices appeal to the Supreme Court?