Remember The Baker Cleared By SCOTUS? Well, Guess What

[Edgetho]

Dear Edgetho
Court Rulings do not change the fact people have different beliefs and the right to defend them.
This is going to go on as long as the conflicts exist.

Look at the Court ruling that struck down bans on same sex marriage as unconstitutional.
After that ruling, Kim Davis still brought up the fact that states had the responsibility
to pass legislation making it legal. And she as an individual could not be forced
or discriminated by the state in refusing to sign marriage licenses against her beliefs.

I don't agree with people abusing govt to push more fines which is not what Kim Davis was doing.
She was merely exercising her right not to participate in something like same sex marriage
or beliefs about that which remain free choice.

The difference is she is acting as an individual.

The people abusing govt authority to enforce, establish or prohibit their personal beliefs
are still overstepping limits on govt.

I'm saying that this will continue to happen because both sides have
their own beliefs and will continue to express them in conflict until this is finally
separated from govt and agreed to keep in private.

You are conflating the actions of government with the actions of an individual.

You just can't do that.

 

[BlackFlag]

Anybody surprised about this? I'm not. They never quit. They respect nothing, not you, not me, not your religion, not even the Supreme Court

Colorado Officials Are Once Again Vindictively Prosecuting Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ignoring Supreme Court Decision
Ace of Spades HQ


Actually, Anthony Kennedy permitted this, by claiming that the Court couldn't reach the merits of the case but could say that the procedure in the original prosecution was biased.

But how can this prosecution be non-biased when the same people are going after him?

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.

Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

...

"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."



And here's the new cake that someone looking to file a complaint demanded he bake:

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.



And so the Civil Rights Commission is going after him again based on this very complainey complainant.

Edge:

dimocraps is what they is. You know what I call them......... You??

This is some stupid fucked up shit. leave the guy alone and go to a different baker.

The Supreme Court ordered this. Feel free to demand a Constitutional amendment stripping them of that power.

Supreme Court pussed out, not just this court but the court that let any anti-discrimination law be applied towards any non-governmental entity. The constitution forbids the government from discrimination and forbids it from forcing private entities not to.

Well damn, you’d think the Supreme Court would have mentioned that in their ruling

This might come as a shock to you, but the Supreme court is not God, they are not infallible. They make shitty, wrong decisions on a regular basis.

You cannot have "protected classes" and "equal protection", you can have one or the other, but they cannot both exist at the same time.

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

 

[BlackFlag]

So...the title didn't say "remember the baker CLEARED BY SCOTUS..."?

He WAS 'cleared' you stupid little girl. By SCOTUS. You gonna play Legal-Beagle on us? You gonna ******* quibble about words and what they mean?

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

The charges were thrown out. The fines were set aside and SCOTUS rebuked the Colorado Commission.

Got it?

Now go find a rinse cycle.

Damn but you people are fucked up

The SC ordered the actions that you’re being a whiny little ***** about, you poor broken thing

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

 

[BlackFlag]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

 

[bodecea]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

 

[emilynghiem]

Anybody surprised about this? I'm not. They never quit. They respect nothing, not you, not me, not your religion, not even the Supreme Court

Colorado Officials Are Once Again Vindictively Prosecuting Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ignoring Supreme Court Decision
Ace of Spades HQ


Actually, Anthony Kennedy permitted this, by claiming that the Court couldn't reach the merits of the case but could say that the procedure in the original prosecution was biased.

But how can this prosecution be non-biased when the same people are going after him?

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.

Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

...

"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."



And here's the new cake that someone looking to file a complaint demanded he bake:

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.



And so the Civil Rights Commission is going after him again based on this very complainey complainant.

Edge:

dimocraps is what they is. You know what I call them......... You??

This is some stupid fucked up shit. leave the guy alone and go to a different baker.

The Supreme Court ordered this. Feel free to demand a Constitutional amendment stripping them of that power.

Supreme Court pussed out, not just this court but the court that let any anti-discrimination law be applied towards any non-governmental entity. The constitution forbids the government from discrimination and forbids it from forcing private entities not to.

Well damn, you’d think the Supreme Court would have mentioned that in their ruling

This might come as a shock to you, but the Supreme court is not God, they are not infallible. They make shitty, wrong decisions on a regular basis.

You cannot have "protected classes" and "equal protection", you can have one or the other, but they cannot both exist at the same time.

Excellent point well stated Golfing Gator
Mind if I quote you and borrow that for another thread on internalized gender ID?

I think you explain it well, that it is contradictory to write laws protected one class over other members
and still claim equal protections; the laws would have to be written Neutrally and Inclusively to apply
equally to people of all classes.

The way I've made a similar argument:
The First Amendment "free exercise of religion" cannot be interpreted so limited
to mean only "recognized" or "organized religion" because that would treat people
differently who claim no formal religious affiliation vs. those with large groups or organizations with resources
to defend their views and prove these are established beliefs to be recognized legally as protected from infringement.

This is why I argue that "freedom of religion" should include ALL beliefs, whether personal
or political, or more generally free will or free choice depending on what someone believes to be right for them;
and then judge that action or intent in context with all other laws against crimes, abuses or violations;
so that free will is not abused or "free exercise" of religion to violate other laws or rights of others.

In the case of orientation, the laws are not being written or enforced free of bias
and protecting beliefs of all people equally. These laws have been introducing implied biases
punishing or policing one side more while protecting the other side; based on whether people
"BELIEVE" that orientation/identity is a choice of behavior that can be rejected or it is a
"natural inborn" trait like Race or Physical Gender determined by genetics/birth, or if it is
a "mental disorder" that should not even be treated as normal or natural.

The laws as pushed are basically discriminating by CREED based on what people BELIEVE
is going on with orientation and gender. So that is a different thread, and if I may, borrow your
explanation and post it there, I thank you twice as much for being twice as helpful!

Thank you, Thank you !
Very well put!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. **** you statist are pathetic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is actually a great thing. Hopefully SCOTUS will address the legal questions of the case instead of punting like the last time.

Assuming it gets that far again. It's at least theoretically possible that the lower courts are able to take the frigging hint, even if the trolls on the Commission are too obtuse to catch on.

I find it interesting that, this time around, Phillips is suing the Commission AND suing the director of the Commission personally.

What I'd like to know is why he hasn't gotten a restraining order on the deranged **** lawyer who's harassing him.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What is it with queers and forcing bakers?

It's almost as if it's a specific agenda.....hmmm.

 

[bodecea]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. **** you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Edgetho
Court Rulings do not change the fact people have different beliefs and the right to defend them.
This is going to go on as long as the conflicts exist.

Look at the Court ruling that struck down bans on same sex marriage as unconstitutional.
After that ruling, Kim Davis still brought up the fact that states had the responsibility
to pass legislation making it legal. And she as an individual could not be forced
or discriminated by the state in refusing to sign marriage licenses against her beliefs.

I don't agree with people abusing govt to push more fines which is not what Kim Davis was doing.
She was merely exercising her right not to participate in something like same sex marriage
or beliefs about that which remain free choice.

The difference is she is acting as an individual.

The people abusing govt authority to enforce, establish or prohibit their personal beliefs
are still overstepping limits on govt.

I'm saying that this will continue to happen because both sides have
their own beliefs and will continue to express them in conflict until this is finally
separated from govt and agreed to keep in private.

You are conflating the actions of government with the actions of an individual.

You just can't do that.

Please READ where I stated this difference as well.
It is included in what I said Edgetho

My point was the conflict and pushback will continue to happen
because both sides' beliefs want protection from the other.

I said basically I AGREE with this difference between individuals
acting and GOVT BEING ABUSED to express personal beliefs.

Sorry this wasn't clear to you but I tried to include that as well!
It's in my post sorry Edgetho!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. **** you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

yes, both are fine. Not serving anyone you wish is fine for whatever reason you want as long as you are not the government is fine.

I think personally both the baker and the lady at the Red Hen are misguided and as such would never give either of them my money, but I will fight all day long for their right to make that choice.

 

[BlackFlag]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

 

[Edgetho]

So let's see where we stand.....

dimocraps are defending Trannies, Child Rapists, Illegal Immigrants, MS 13, Pledge of Allegiance kneelers, Anthem Kneelers, AntiFa, Anything to do with Islam including Female Genital Mutilation, child rape, burning people alive, etc, etc ad nauseam.

I can't keep up. There's just too much filth that dimocrap scum defend.

Feel free to add to my woefully incomplete list.

You wonder why I call dimocraps the scum of the Earth?

People...........

They ARE

 

[Edgetho]

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

Republicans fought and died to Free the Slaves.

It was dimocrap scum that were the slavers.

And what's slavery got to do with this?

You're just losing the argument and ran out of whiney excuses

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is it with queers and forcing bakers?

It's almost as if it's a specific agenda.....hmmm.

I think this lunatic shrew, Autumn Scardina, makes that painfully obvious. There's not even a pretense at "discrimination" or "emotional trauma", because this crazy person has made it blatantly clear that all he/she/it (I'm honestly not even clear which one applies at this point) is looking for is a chance to sue . . . and also to make Mr. Phillip's life miserable. The homosexual couple at least had a thin tissue of possibility that they MIGHT actually just want a cake, as opposed to deliberately targeting him. This scuzzy piece of work doesn't even have that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

No, anti-discrimination laws do. They put a facade over the problem instead of allowing it to be fixed. It is just one more example of people wanting the government to make them behave.

And you keep ignoring that the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law".

Yeah freeing the slaves just put a facade over the country too. They should have let slavery go on and on until the oppressors found it in their great loveable hearts to to give slaves some time off every once in a while or something

You are conflating two separate things. Owning another human being is a separate issue from discrimination.

I know you are just trying to make an emotional argument and cannot present your case from a side of logic, but you are failing badly

 

[emilynghiem]

The last several decades of civil rights legislation proves that anti-discrimination laws work just fine

Not really, all they do is lead in the end to a more divided society.

And that still does not change the basic fact you cannot have both "protected classes" and "equal protection under the law". The SCOTUS choose the former and ignores the actual Constitution in doing so.

Civil rights led to a more divided society? Good ******* grief

If certain groups aren't allowed to keep other certain groups as second class citizens, it's obviously a more divided society.........right?

Not baking a cake is not "keeping" a group. **** you statist are pathetic.

Not baking a cake is fine now.....just like not serving a member of trump's staff is fine now.

Dear bodecea
You can boycott and refuse service in either case.

But making death threats or threatening violence or vandalism
to a person, property or business is still criminal.

What's wrong here is people not respecting the
beliefs of others equally, by the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

I happen to believe in enforcing the Golden Rule.
If I want the govt to enforce equal protections of rights and beliefs
for all people, I have to set and follow that standard if I am
going to be effective in enforcing it and compelling others to respect the same.

Edgetho this is the area where people are the govt.
It's not that we abuse govt for our personal agenda or beliefs but the other way.
We compel and hold Govt to respect our beliefs, and follow the First
Amendment that states neither to ESTABLISH nor to PROHIBIT
the free exercise of religion. While the Fourteenth Amendment
is about not denying or disparaging the equal protection of the laws for all persons,
as expanded from just Congress/federal govt to the States and state govt.
And the Civil Rights Act expanded this protection to Public Institutions as well.
where nobody is discriminated against on the basis of CREED, race etc.

Edgetho and bodecea if we want govt and public policy
to respect equal protections of our beliefs, these have to be
applied to all people of all beliefs, not just for our benefit and interest.
Otherwise the people left out will fight for inclusion and protection,
and so on and so on. The process of pushback will continue
until all people are equally protected included represented and secured
in the promise of equal justice/protections of the law.