Masterpiece Cake Baker Civil Rights Lawsuit vs Ginsburg's Obergefell.

[Silhouette]

Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Obergefell Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.

Public Accommodation activists will fall back on Obergefell. Obergefell was an illegal Hearing. How is this going to work out? Ruth Bader Ginsburg: America is ready for gay marriage

Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, a USSC 2009 decision that Ginsburg herself signed off on, says that ANY judge who is reasonably suspected of bias MUST recuse themselves from a case. That's a HUGE problem for the viability of the Obergefell Ruling.
​

*********************
Months after winning a Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Colorado baker Jack Phillips is setting up for another legal showdown.

Phillips, ordered by the state Civil Rights Commission into mediation with a trans customer of his Masterpiece Cakeshop for whom he had refused to bake a cake, sued Colorado officials in federal court on Tuesday, claiming they violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion.

“Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit cites Phillips’ narrow Supreme Court victory in June that said the state Civil Rights Commission displayed anti-religious attitudes toward the baker, violating his rights, in a case involving his refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Sues Colorado After Refusing To Bake Trans Woman's Cake | HuffPost

**************

One of the many flaws in Obergefell is that it turned just some deviant addictive behaviors (but not others that the majority also find repugnant) into a special class. The list of potentials is incomplete and giving those potentials a complete pass in mention was highly negligent in Obergefell.

And, so, because behaviors, just some but not others, were alluded to be a protected class of people, we find ourselves at a showdown between deviant sex behaviors and the religious people and others of basic moral fortitude opposed, at odds over whether the public has to actually recognize them (what they DO, not what they are) as "protected behaviors" essentially. If they are protected behaviors, the Colorado baker will probably have to bake that cake. But if the Court finds that behaviors, ideals and rituals cannot be foisted on others without their moral consent, then the baker may win.

Very recently a tranny guy wanted the same baker to make him a "transition celebration" cake. The baker again refused on principle. This will wind up in the same case probably. The baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake has now turned away a trans woman

​

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Race and gender do, as well as country of origin because those are innate, inborn issues that people cannot help. Behaviors adopted after birth, addictive or not, are not the same as innate things.

The Court will have to determine if behaviors, ideals or rituals can require forced-participation by the unwilling.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Race and gender do

And are unconstitutional.

 

[Silhouette]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Race and gender do

And are unconstitutional.

Well we will see. The Court will look the 14th over carefully this time & not skim like It did with Obergefell (with one openly biased justice presiding...).

 

[Silent Warrior]

Well, since Ginsburg doesn't believe in the constitution, nothing she says is relevant.

 

[mdk]

Yup, gay marriage is certainly doomed this time. You have dozens of threads finding a legal case and claiming *this is one* to make your wish come true. You don’t have any standing.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yup, gay marriage is certainly doomed this time. You have dozens of threads finding a legal case and claiming *this is one* to make your wish come true. You don’t have any standing.

Gay marriage aside how do you feel about the apparent bias of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
That doesn't seem problematic to you?
She's welcome to her own prejudices and biases, but how can someone rule on a matter they have already stated a preference for?

 

[Silhouette]

Yup, gay marriage is certainly doomed this time. You have dozens of threads finding a legal case and claiming *this is one* to make your wish come true. You don’t have any standing.

Gay marriage aside how do you feel about the apparent bias of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
That doesn't seem problematic to you?
She's welcome to her own prejudices and biases, but how can someone rule on a matter they have already stated a preference for?

Yes, mdk conveniently skipped over the generic fact that Ginsburg is required to recuse herself in ANY case that she openly declared bias on to the press weeks before its Hearing.

 

[mdk]

Yup, gay marriage is certainly doomed this time. You have dozens of threads finding a legal case and claiming *this is one* to make your wish come true. You don’t have any standing.

Gay marriage aside how do you feel about the apparent bias of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
That doesn't seem problematic to you?
She's welcome to her own prejudices and biases, but how can someone rule on a matter they have already stated a preference for?

She entitled to her opinion when asked a question, just like Justice Scalia. The only reason people wanted her to recuse herself from the case b/c they knew she was going to likely vote in favor of gay marriage. It’s the same reason folks tried to get Justice Thomas to recuse on the account of his wife.

 

[mdk]

Yup, gay marriage is certainly doomed this time. You have dozens of threads finding a legal case and claiming *this is one* to make your wish come true. You don’t have any standing.

Gay marriage aside how do you feel about the apparent bias of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
That doesn't seem problematic to you?
She's welcome to her own prejudices and biases, but how can someone rule on a matter they have already stated a preference for?

Yes, mdk conveniently skipped over the generic fact that Ginsburg is required to recuse herself in ANY case that she openly declared bias on to the press weeks before its Hearing.

Except for the whole fact she isn’t required to recuse herself. No one is bound by your silly interpretation of Massey.

 

[Silhouette]

The only reason people wanted her to recuse herself from the case b/c they knew she was going to likely vote in favor of gay marriage. It’s the same reason folks tried to get Justice Thomas to recuse on the account of his wife.

Yes. That’s the problem. People knew how she would cast because she had been openly & flagrantly flaunting bias for weeks & months ahead.

Thanks for making the case for required refusal.

 

[mdk]

The only reason people wanted her to recuse herself from the case b/c they knew she was going to likely vote in favor of gay marriage. It’s the same reason folks tried to get Justice Thomas to recuse on the account of his wife.

Yes. That’s the problem. People knew how she would cast because she had been openly & flagrantly flaunting bias for weeks & months ahead.

Thanks for making the case for required refusal.

And you didn’t know how Justice Thomas or Scalia was going to vote!? lol. We told you for months how the votes were going to shake out. You lost. Get over it already.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Except for the whole fact she isn’t required to recuse herself. No one is bound by your silly interpretation of Massey.

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. - Wikipedia.
"Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009),[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case, but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

Ummm...someone else shares that "silly interpretation". Someone is in the clear wrong here and it seems to be you
AND Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And you didn’t know how Justice Thomas or Scalia was going to vote!? lol. We told you for months how the votes were going to shake out. You lost. Get over it already.

Everyone can make educated guesses how Scalia or Ginsburg is going to rule on any given issue but that isn't the same as coming out and actually stating your intentions well before the fact.
You seem to be backpedaling.

Everyone "knew" how John Roberts would come down on Obama Care. Except he didn't act as expected. In fact he created a rationale for an Obama Care tax that not even Obama lawyers would make. There is a difference between ruling as you are expected to rule and
pronouncing a case settled long before it comes before the Supremes.

I think you should learn that difference.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ginsburg announced to the nation in media weeks in advance of the Obergefell Hearing that she felt despite how so many states were opposed that gay marriage was something that America is ready for. That's announcing pure, distilled bias, with the intent to thwart the will of the People using her judicial seat.

Public Accommodation activists will fall back on Obergefell. Obergefell was an illegal Hearing. How is this going to work out? Ruth Bader Ginsburg: America is ready for gay marriage

Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal, a USSC 2009 decision that Ginsburg herself signed off on, says that ANY judge who is reasonably suspected of bias MUST recuse themselves from a case. That's a HUGE problem for the viability of the Obergefell Ruling.
​

*********************
Months after winning a Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Colorado baker Jack Phillips is setting up for another legal showdown.

Phillips, ordered by the state Civil Rights Commission into mediation with a trans customer of his Masterpiece Cakeshop for whom he had refused to bake a cake, sued Colorado officials in federal court on Tuesday, claiming they violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion.

“Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit cites Phillips’ narrow Supreme Court victory in June that said the state Civil Rights Commission displayed anti-religious attitudes toward the baker, violating his rights, in a case involving his refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Sues Colorado After Refusing To Bake Trans Woman's Cake | HuffPost

**************

One of the many flaws in Obergefell is that it turned just some deviant addictive behaviors (but not others that the majority also find repugnant) into a special class. The list of potentials is incomplete and giving those potentials a complete pass in mention was highly negligent in Obergefell.

And, so, because behaviors, just some but not others, were alluded to be a protected class of people, we find ourselves at a showdown between deviant sex behaviors and the religious people and others of basic moral fortitude opposed, at odds over whether the public has to actually recognize them (what they DO, not what they are) as "protected behaviors" essentially. If they are protected behaviors, the Colorado baker will probably have to bake that cake. But if the Court finds that behaviors, ideals and rituals cannot be foisted on others without their moral consent, then the baker may win.

Very recently a tranny guy wanted the same baker to make him a "transition celebration" cake. The baker again refused on principle. This will wind up in the same case probably. The baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake has now turned away a trans woman

​

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation concern Commerce Clause case law.

Romer/Lawrence/Obergefell concerned 14th Amendment jurisprudence – the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The issues are completely unrelated, one having nothing to do with the other.

Conservatives are as ignorant as they are bigoted and dishonest.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation concern Commerce Clause case law.

Romer/Lawrence/Obergefell concerned 14th Amendment jurisprudence – the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The issues are completely unrelated, one having nothing to do with the other.

That difference is not in evidence.
You haven't provided any rationale for your claim.

Conservatives are as ignorant as they are bigoted and dishonest.

Nothing bigoted about that claim.
Your brush stokes are very wide and about as subtle as a brick through the window.

 

[mdk]

Except for the whole fact she isn’t required to recuse herself. No one is bound by your silly interpretation of Massey.

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. - Wikipedia.
"Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009),[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case, but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."

Ummm...someone else shares that "silly interpretation". Someone is in the clear wrong here and it seems to be you
AND Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She said she thinks America is ready for gay marriage. Big deal. The funny thing about Massey is that if reheard it would be likely scrapped. I guess I’ll just have to life with you thinking I am wrong. Oh, well.

 

[mdk]

And you didn’t know how Justice Thomas or Scalia was going to vote!? lol. We told you for months how the votes were going to shake out. You lost. Get over it already.

Everyone can make educated guesses how Scalia or Ginsburg is going to rule on any given issue but that isn't the same as coming out and actually stating your intentions well before the fact.
You seem to be backpedaling.

Everyone "knew" how John Roberts would come down on Obama Care. Except he didn't act as expected. In fact he created a rationale for an Obama Care tax that not even Obama lawyers would make. There is a difference between ruling as you are expected to rule and
pronouncing a case settled long before it comes before the Supremes.

I think you should learn that difference.

You would have a point if she pronounced the case settled long before heard. She didn’t and she isn't required to recuse to herself. You don’t like that, but so what?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

She said she thinks America is ready for gay marriage. Big deal.

It kind of is considering she is supposed to be ruling on the legality of it. Suppose the issue was the Constitutionality of
Trump's wall and Samuel Alito said months prior to that he thought America wanted that wall.
I doubt you'd be quite so sanguine.

The funny thing about Massey is that if reheard it would be likely scrapped. I guess I’ll just have to life with you thinking I am wrong. Oh, well.

That already happened well before this issue came up.