Colorado appeals court backs gay couple in wedding cake dispute

[Seawytch]

The Constitution grants the Freedom of Religion ... and the 'practice thereof...'. Refusing to engage in activities that are contradictory to one's religion IS 'practicing one's religion'. PRACTICING one's religion is adhering to one's faith and abiding by the practicies of that faith...which, again, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. That would mean this 'accomodation law' is Un-Constitutional because it seeks to force Christians to abandon their religious beliefs and engage in acts that violate the PRACTICING of that religion.
- This is Liberal 'War on Christianity'

Okay, lets follow that logic. If any religious belief in the positive or negative invalidated civil law.....does this only work for Christians?

Would Muslims have the same authority to ignore any law that didn't conform with Sharia?

You are now talking about a legal / judicial practice (it can be argued), one that does seriously negatively impact others and violates the existing legal system in this country. I am talking about a government NOT being able to force a baker to bake a cake. I am not talking about a Muslim coming here and saying it is my right to kill my daughter because she was holding hands with a boy (Honor killings).

Does it work for Muslims? Sure. The next time a Christian walks into a Muslim Bakery and asks them to bake a cake that says 'Mohammad is Dead, Jesus is Alive...'Nuff Said' they can refuse to make the cake.

So you think Christians can ignore "some" laws. Can Muslims ignore some laws as well or is it just Christians that get this special "laws don't apply to us"?

You still don't understand PA laws. Nobody is being asked to provide a product or service they don't already provide.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Help me out here. I thought it would only go to the SC if there were differing opinions in the lower courts, and then the Supremes decided if they even wanted to take the case. The appeals court agreed with the first court, so there is no disagreement in the lower courts, and no question of law to answer. Have I been misinformed all this time?

Yes you have been misinformed. Even if the District Court and the Appeals Court agree, the loser in the case can still appeal constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. Now say the Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit rules one way on a District Court case under their jurisdiction and the 11th Circuit court rules another on the same issue under their jurisdiction. Then it makes it more likely the Supreme Court will accept an appeal - but they are still not required to.


>>>>

I'm not sure there is a constitutional question that hasn't already been addressed, but thanks for the answer.

Just to place this case in context. The ruling (linked below) is from a Colorado Appeals court and not a Federal Court of Appeals. In other words this case is still working through state level courts and not the federal court system. The next step, I assume, would be an appeal to the Colorado State Supreme Court for a review. Once the state Supreme Court issues a ruling (if they accept the case for review), then the losing party can appeal that decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

This is the same path that the Elane Photography case followed: State Civil Rights ruling, Appeal, State Supreme Court ruling, appeal to SCOTUS. The SCOTUS declined to review the case leaving the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling as the final word in the case. (Note: They upheld the state Public Accommodation law.)


http://media.thedenverchannel.com/documents/Masterpiece Cake Shop Court of Appeals 14CA1351-PD.pdf?_ga=1.88503899.1710761070.1439519391

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

[and in the Colorado case the guy said he doesn't deny cakes if you are gay, he just doesn't want to provide a cake for a gay wedding.

The Colorado law requires "full and equal" access to goods and services, not one set of goods and services for one group and another smaller set of goods and services for another group.

If the bakery sells wedding cakes and refused wedding cake sales, the willingness of the bakery to sell them cupcakes is irrelevant to the issue.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Does it work for Muslims? Sure. The next time a Christian walks into a Muslim Bakery and asks them to bake a cake that says 'Mohammad is Dead, Jesus is Alive...'Nuff Said' they can refuse to make the cake.

That would fall into a compelled speech issue which does not exist here.

Here is cake from the Masterpiece cakes wedding cake catalog.

Masterpiece cakes would sell this cake to a straight couple.

Masterpiece cakes would not sell this cake to a homosexual couple.


It's the same cake, the difference is who was buying the cake.


>>>>

 

[BULLDOG]

Help me out here. I thought it would only go to the SC if there were differing opinions in the lower courts, and then the Supremes decided if they even wanted to take the case. The appeals court agreed with the first court, so there is no disagreement in the lower courts, and no question of law to answer. Have I been misinformed all this time?

Yes you have been misinformed. Even if the District Court and the Appeals Court agree, the loser in the case can still appeal constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. Now say the Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit rules one way on a District Court case under their jurisdiction and the 11th Circuit court rules another on the same issue under their jurisdiction. Then it makes it more likely the Supreme Court will accept an appeal - but they are still not required to.


>>>>

I'm not sure there is a constitutional question that hasn't already been addressed, but thanks for the answer.

Just to place this case in context. The ruling (linked below) is from a Colorado Appeals court and not a Federal Court of Appeals. In other words this case is still working through state level courts and not the federal court system. The next step, I assume, would be an appeal to the Colorado State Supreme Court for a review. Once the state Supreme Court issues a ruling (if they accept the case for review), then the losing party can appeal that decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

This is the same path that the Elane Photography case followed: State Civil Rights ruling, Appeal, State Supreme Court ruling, appeal to SCOTUS. The SCOTUS declined to review the case leaving the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling as the final word in the case. (Note: They upheld the state Public Accommodation law.)


http://media.thedenverchannel.com/documents/Masterpiece Cake Shop Court of Appeals 14CA1351-PD.pdf?_ga=1.88503899.1710761070.1439519391

>>>>

Thanks for the info. An opinion without actually understanding what is happening doesn't help anyone much. You helped me to better understand

 

[Statistikhengst]

CADA upheld the state's public accommodation law.

Colorado appeals court backs gay couple in wedding cake dispute - Yahoo News

Cue RWNJ wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Oh, the horror, the horror! Have to bake delicious sweet sugary give you diabetes stuff for icky gay people. EEEK!!!

Jeebus will have none of this.