Skip to comments.Despite Sweet Cakes By Melissa Ruling, Gay Wedding Cakes Still Not A Constitutional Right
Posted on 01/02/2018 4:24:47 PM PST by Starman417
One wonders if the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case did not involve the owners refusing to be coerced to violate their religious conscience by providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding that celebrates gay marriage, but rather a Muslim bakery being forced to bake a cake decorated with a cartoon picture of the prophet Muhammed covered with bacon sprinkles.
Would the bakery in that scenario been forced to pay a heavy business-killing fine for actually believing that the Founding Fathers meant freedom of religion when they enshrined it in the First Amendment? Probably not, even if the ruling was made by a liberal Oregon judge who forgot that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution and governmental war on their religious conscience:
The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery who in 2013 refused to design and bake a cake celebrating a lesbian couple's same-sex wedding.Creative expression in any form is free speech which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes.
The Kleins felt that designing and making the cake to celebrate the 2013 same-sex wedding would violate their Christian faith.
On Thursday, however, the appeals court upheld the decision by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries to fine the Kleins $135,000. The hefty financial penalty ultimately forced the couple to close their bakery .
"Freedom of expression for ourselves should require freedom of expression for others. Today, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided that Aaron and Melissa Klein are not entitled to the Constitution's promises of religious liberty and free speech," First Liberty CEO Kelly Shackelford stated.
The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a similar case, Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the shop refused to make a cake for a gay couple to celebrate their same-sex marriage, saying it would be an endorsement of gay marriage that would violate their religious beliefs. The Colorado courts thought otherwise:
It started over five years ago with a simple request for a wedding cake. And now, after wending its way through the system, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is finally having its day before the U.S. Supreme Court.In this case, as Jordan Lawrence writes in National Review, the line between providing a service and expressing a view are being deliberately blurred by liberals to destroy both free speech and religious liberty:
Many legal experts believe it will be the most significant case of the term. It involves a clash of our rights as citizens, as well as our ideals.
Two of the most precious rights Americans possess are freedom of expression and freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. Both are enshrined in the First Amendment .
It began in July 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, who owned the Masterpiece Cakeshop, to create a custom wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage. Phillips refused, saying he didnt wish to promote a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs.
Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission decided against Phillips, declaring he had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.
The commission ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its policies, give its staff training on discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for two years on steps taken to comply with the order.
The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Last year, Phillips petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the Colorado ruling violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
So many other examples... Hindu’s and pork, Jewish and Pork, etc. Do these rulings equally apply or only to Christians refusing to support homosexualality?
Most Court rulings over the last 100+ years are unconstitutional, with little, if any, reasonable attempt to base the decision on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
Those rulings, including the one at hand, should be REJECTED and NULLIFIED by the states and the other two branches of the federal government.
Isn’t there a similar case or cases currently before the USSC? Couldn’t they get in on an amicus brief?
This is misprision of justice on the part of this court.
Muzzies would not have been coerced and fined. The state would have bowed in submission to them.
If you would like more information about what's happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
I’d like to order a ham sandwich for a Christian at a Halal sandwich shop and see what happens. (cue the sound of crickets)
I’m going to go on a limb and say the Supremes vote 6-3 in favor of the CO cake designer. Which would free up the OR cake designers.
The court(s) didnt legalize same-sex marriage to advance freedom, but to use it as a battering ram against freedom.
Should a black baker be forced by law to bake a cake for the KKK?
That is a good distinction. Often the answer to a dilemma like this is to go in with a scalpel, not a bulldozer. Very intelligent point. Hope the Court is listening.
I would defy.
Does a black baker or printer have to serve a KKK march? Does a Muslim have to serve a Draw Muhammad contest or give a customer a BLT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.