Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

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: Clandestine Cabal Seeks to Hide Info in Jeffrey Epstein Case

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

Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?

  • Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?  

  • 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

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Internet Giant’s Election Meddling Exposed by New Research

This is the sort of power that we wouldn’t grant to even the most benevolent or pragmatic person, so why has America allowed a corporation such gravity?

Published

on

Google

While the left decried the possibility of Russian “election meddling” until they were blue in the face back in 2016, their friends over at Google were taking lessons. You see, the internet itself exists parallel to our “real world” in many ways.  We use this channel of information often for convenience, paying bills and ordering goods and services through the click of a mouse or the tap of a finger.  Data is stored, packed, sent, received, and acted upon just as though we had committed these acts in the real world, leading many to tout the internet as some sort fo “new reality”. This is dangerous thinking, folks, given that the internet itself is a privately controlled space.  Enormous tech companies such as Google and Facebook are the de facto kings of the world wide web, steering more traffic between them than outside of their purview.  This has granted companies such as these an extraordinarily precarious grip on public knowledge and what was once the freedom of information. Just how monopolistic are these private companies?  A new research study shows that Google actually influenced the American 2018 midterms, flipping congressional districts. New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country. The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge. The research follows a previous study conducted…

Continue Reading

News

Ocasio-Cortez Continues Radical Leftist Lurch with Gun-Grab Propaganda

An armed American public is certainly capable of “killing people”, as AOC tweeted, but if those people are a hostile, authoritarian force, her proposal would sentence the American people to death…or worse.

Published

on

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

There is little doubt that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing the democratic party hard to the left. The 28 year old bartender-turned-Congresswoman has been a left-leaning fireball of vitriol from the moment that she stepped onto the national political scene, often gaslighting herself by playing up her radical nature on social media in order to combat the “trolls” that she so often demeans. With 2020 on the horizon, and one of the leading contenders for the democratic nomination already having admitted to eating “regenerative”, magical dirt, the sort of insanity that AOC injects into Washington DC may seem par for the course. The reality is, however, that it is dangerous. With Ocasio-Cortez capturing the imaginations of young democrats everywhere, 2020 candidates will likely need to appease her own fringe base in order to gather the necessary votes to make an impact on the race.  And that means, unfortunately, that the young Congresswoman’s anti-constitutional stance on firearms could go mainstream. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggests Congress should ban “semiautos, & high cap mags.” She also called for a ban on bump stocks, which the Department of Justice banned in December 2018. AOC was reacting to a bizarre incident at an Indiana school where teachers were shot by police with air pistols during an active shooter drill. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1108908752865054720 AOC’s call to ban “semiautos” is particularly disturbing, considering that a vast majority of all weapons in America are semi-automatic, meaning that one pull of the trigger will send one round through the barrel. Furthermore, the insinuation that guns could be used to “kill people” isn’t new and horrific, despite how bluntly AOC included the phrase in her tweet. We must remember that the Second Amendment, and the firearms that it protects, are the nation’s insurance policy against tyranny from both foreign and domestic sources.  Disarming the American people, even…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend