Justice Dept. Sides With Colorado Baker Sued by 'Gay' Couple
In three short minutes the complete narrative of what is at stake in this case is summarized by a news department. This is the challenge for our flourishing republic. Shall we continue holding as captives portions of our legal citizenry as secondary, rejects, and outcasts (man-made social constructs) or shall the United States continue moving forward on a steady trek to a polymorphic society of social diversification once and for all.
Tags
Who is online
389 visitors
If the United States continues to oppress and repress its legal citizens through imposing man-made social constructs intent on limiting freedoms, is it any wonder that people will push, fight, routinely?
There are two counter perspectives I can readily see:
1. The baker and Others argue they should not have to allow their minds to contain "unholy" concepts leading to actions while profiting in the public marketplace.
2. Colorado Appeals Court takes stock of the change in state and federal laws in 2014 and 2015 which sanctioned same-sex marriage; by the time of the court's decision, same-sex marriage became a valid, legal, form of marriage. Consequently, such marriage in inline with the Appeals Court's judgement in favor of the couple.
Same sex marriage is legal. Great.
But, the baker "should" have every right to say "no".
It is just like that woman who was pregnant with twins and goes into a restaurant and is refused service because of her attire being......crock top and skirt pulled down under her stomach. And, there she was in all her glory showing off a bare greatly enlarged stomach.
Was she discriminated against? She says so. No one should have been subjected to that sight while dining.
Hi magnoliaave,
A category mistake: A poor fashion statement and bad taste | public accommodation - discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The state of Colorado expects its business owners to obey state and federal laws against ldiscrimination.
Regardless of what the Justice Department does or how this baker feels about his religious beliefs, this case is really a non-starter. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue, taking it away from the states and ruled that marriage equality is a "right". The implications are enormous. The SCOTUS does not want to revisit the issue or any of the extenuating circumstances. Believers in traditional marriage and religious organizations & their congregations will now be called "bigots" regardless of their concerns.
Vic Eldred, this is precisely why the Trump Administration is weighing in on this. It is a Trump Administration attack on a(nother) Obama Administration policy. Furthermore, it is the DOJ taking the new Justice, Neil Gorsuch, out on a "test-run." More conservative cases waiting in the que.
I'm not sure about that. You may remember that Obama gradually changed his position on this issue and sided with the Court. Somewhere in the middle I think Obama had it right - when he transitioned to the view that redefining marriage should be done for simple human empathy. Eventually, he went all the way to a "right" and there are a few problems with that which may take us off topic a bit.
As I have said the DOJ loses this one for the reasons I have stated. The motives of that agency may be more social than political.
T here are a few problems with that which may take us off topic a bit.
_________________________________________________________
By all means, make your point. I want to follow your thinking. Right now, I am thinking the Obama Administration had DOJ put forward court documents in 2013 for approval of Same Sex Marriage:
Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court
Thursday Feb 28, 2013 10:54 AM
Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California, wading into the protracted legal battle over Proposition 8 and giving gay-rights advocates a new court ally.
After first suggesting it would not get involved, the Obama administration will file a friend-of-the-court brief late today in support of the two gay couples who launched the fight over the issue four years ago, the officials said. Today is the last day for filing briefs in support of the couples' position.
The administration last year signaled it might stay on the sidelines. In May, when President Obama first said that "same-sex couples should be able to get married," he added that it was not a matter for the federal government.
Related: 100 Republicans sign brief to the Supreme Court arguing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally wed
Here is the Obama DOJ Friend of the Court Brief
But after abortion became forced upon all the states laws were enacted to protect those who had religious objections to being involved in them. There are numerous conscience clauses protecting one from being forced into participating in one in any way and from prescribing medication that violated conscience. No one accuses those using these protections of discrimination. The courts have expanded these protections to cover birth control in relation to Obamacare. The Chief Justice did say after the gay marriage ruling that the court would have to revisit the issue in regard to conscience clauses for those impacted by the decision.
I could use that reference to the Chief Justice's words right now.
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. discussed religious liberty concerns. “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty,” Roberts wrote. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.”
Roberts noted that the question of tax-exempt status of religious institutions could become an issue.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued the following on religious liberty in his dissent:
He also wrote the following on religious liberty.
Acts of Faith newsletter
Conversations about faith and values.
Thank you, 'Jefferson. I will reply shortly to this posting.
This says what about "good and decent people" who are heartless and dry to disallow other people the experiences of love, fellowship, and prosperity they wish for themselves? Go ahead define that good, decent group for me, 'Jefferson!
There is Justice C. Thomas seeing a problem, but not doing any of the hard-work to improve the human condition. I almost resist commenting on his "message" because he meets none of my hopes and expectations no matter how small or great as a Justice.
It is good for him that he is a twenty-century Justice, because considering his conservatively held precepts being born black sooner there is high probability he would have to deny himself a seat on the high court!
To be clear, Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop violated this couple's civil rights. He outright told the couple they could buy anything he normally sells to the public, but he could not create, for them specifically, a wedding cake he sells to the public. According to court documents, Mr. Phillips did not look at their book of designs ("expressions") before denying the couple this service because it involved same-sex relations.
Good day, U.S.A!
This is the challenge for our flourishing republic. . . .