Connect with us

News

SCOTUS Hands Major Victory to Colorado Christian Baker in Latest Ruling

Great news!

Published

on

Jack Phillips, owner and operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado received some excellent news from the Supreme Court, as a 7-2 decision ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated his First Amendment rights.

The majority opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who as joined by Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the opinion and the result, pushing it to 7-2 in favor of Mr. Phillips, which overturned the 10 Circuit’s decision in support of the CCRC’s actions.

The two dissenting votes, unsurprisingly, are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Trending: President Trump Speaks About His Future Plans During Lunch At One of His Golf Clubs

The case concerned the plight of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to bake a number of different kinds of cakes, based on his religious principles. For example, he refused to bake cakes that celebrated divorces, cakes that were infused with alcohol, cakes with obscene language or artwork, or cakes celebrating same-sex weddings.

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop were sued by a gay couple under a Colorado state law (the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act) that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by any “place of business engaged in any sales to the public[.]”

Under CADA, the case was handled by the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which found that Masterpiece was in violation of the law and referred Masterpiece for a formal hearing in front of a state administrative law judge (ALJ). The Commission rejected Masterpiece’s argument that compelling him to bake the cake would violate his rights under the First Amendment.

In ruling in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court declined to make sweeping rulings about the propriety of such laws as CADA generally, but instead focused on what it considered shortcomings in the Civil Rights Commission’s deliberative processes.

Writing for the court, Justice Kennedy explained that “Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

The opinion was fully focused on the open hostility that the CCRC displayed toward religion:

Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case… That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

While this is a major victory for the First Amendment and Phillips, it’s important to note this ruling does not answer the question, definitively, whether or not businesses may categorically refuse to provide certain services for same-sex weddings, which means this is a topic that will likely be tackled at a later time.

Still, you have to appreciate every victory, no matter how small, and this is definitely one of those moments.

Source: TheBlaze

Save conservative media!

*Headline

President Trump Speaks About His Future Plans During Lunch At One of His Golf Clubs

Hail to the chief!

John Salvatore

Published

on

President Trump may no longer work from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t planning something big to keep the MAGA movement alive. Here’s the latest on 45, via Washington Examiner: WEST PALM BEACH, Florida — Former President Donald Trump gave nothing away about his plans for life after the White House as he dined with friends at his golf club on Friday. “We’ll do something, but not just yet,” he told the Washington Examiner as he sat at his regular table in the Grill Room of the Trump International Golf Club. An aide to the former chief executive then swooped in and swiftly, but politely, ended the interaction. CONTINUED: Trump has let it be known that he is considering another run for the White House in 2024. Reports also suggested that he was considering setting up a new party, the Patriot Party, as a vehicle to run for office. He brought a small staff with him to Florida. They are working out of the Mar-a-Lago club as they begin to ramp up operations. Here’s some random noise from anti-Trump, anti-free speech, anti-American Twitter… https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1352735841366335488 https://twitter.com/cabot_phillips/status/1352734530524729344 https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1352723083300401152 https://twitter.com/TwitchyTeam/status/1352752362604146689 https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1349493316468023303

Continue Reading

News

AOC: I Didn’t Attend Inauguration Because I Didn’t ‘Feel Safe’ Around Republicans

UNITY!

John Salvatore

Published

on

If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez loved history (or her country), she would’ve been in attendance at the inauguration on January 20 – however fraudulent it may be. You’d think someone like AOC would want to see history being made when Kamala Harris was sworn-in as the first female vice president – however fraudulent it may be, also. Instead, the loudmouth from the Bronx decided to push her style of “unity” by saying Republicans are dangerous. Swell. From The Daily Wire: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said during an interview on Thursday night that part of the reason that she did not attend President Joe Biden’s inauguration was because she does not feel safe around Republicans. “You knew that people would ask why you weren’t there,” CNN host Chris Cuomo said. “This was a good cause, from your perspective, of dealing with your constituency. But this was supposed to be a show of force, and unity, and you weren’t there. Explain it.” She blabbered, “Yeah, you know, I think we also had very real security concerns as well, as you mentioned earlier. We still don’t yet feel safe around other Members of Congress and…” VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnj-mjqJf8&feature=emb_title

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week