Wow...and this is in California


A California judge ruled Monday the state couldn’t force a cake shop owner to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, ruling that doing so would constitute a violation of free speech.

Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the State of California’s request for a preliminary injunction that sought to force bakeshop owner Cathy Miller to design a wedding cake for a gay couple.

“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” Lampe ruled, according to a press release sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation. The injunction also posited that if Miller refused to design the cake, the state would force her to close her Tastries Bakery shop altogether.

“We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech,” chief counsel and Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) president, Charles LiMandri, said after the ruling, the press release reports. LiMandri argued in Friday’s court hearing that Miller doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, but refuses to use her artistic talents to express a message that conflicts with her religious beliefs about marriage.

The ruling comes after two women asked Miller to design their wedding cake and filed a complaint with the state, alleging that Miller discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. They also posted about the event on social media. Following their complaint, the state launched an investigation and sought a court order to force Miller to bake their wedding cake.

“This is a significant victory for faith and freedom because the judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law,” LiMandri said. “No doubt the California officials will continue their persecution of Cathy, but it is clear that she has the Constitution on her side.”

The cake baking incident comes after the Supreme Court announced in June that it would hear a similar case that occurred in 2012, when a baker in Denver refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Lower courts had previously ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated the state’s accommodation laws by refusing to serve a customer based on sexual orientation, according to The Washington Post.


http://dailycaller.com/2018/02...ing-cake-gay-couple/

Now, sue for costs relative to the law suit.

The US supreme Court heard arguments is a essentially identical case in December. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Personally I don't have issues with the bakery not wanting to do the work based on religious issues, if that's really the issue, and I'd bet the two that caused all this did it on purpose going to many other bakers until they could find one to make an example of nationally.

CA is one f'd up state, thinking they can force people to act outside of their core beliefs or be fined, bankrupted or leave the state.

OTOH, why pass up a revenue project.


If you don't like the customer then just ask them for their date and then tell them you are already overbooked for that month, or, price them out of the deal, or if the cake is too risque in nature just tell them your bakery doesn't do that type of products, anything but telling them no, because you're the gay.....

quote:

Originally posted by HRK: .....I'd bet the two that caused all this did it on purpose going to many other bakers until they could find one to make an example of nationally......

Of course they did.

I just wanna know why these cake buyers aren't asking the local mooslim baker for the same service. Me thinks I know the answer...

quote:

The injunction also posited that if Miller refused to design the cake, the state would force her to close her Tastries Bakery shop altogether.

The absolute definition of a totalitarian regime. Good on the judge for smacking this down, but rest assured, use of the legal system by this filth to effect change in society they could not get by any other means isn't going to stop. Let's hope the SCOTUS renders a similar decision when they hear the case JALLEN referenced.

This outcome makes me happy!

God bless America! And thank God for the Constitution!

Very happy, indeed!

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Personally I don't have issues with the bakery not wanting to do the work based on religious issues....

Why does the objection have to be religion based? Why can't I as a business owner choose who I will or will not do business with because its my business? I think its beyond ridiculous that any business owner should be forced by the government to do business with anyone else. If someone owns a bar and doesn't want to serve white, blonde, blue eyed, big breasted women who's birthdays fall in February, so be it. In the age of social media, they will likely be committing financial suicide, but it damn sure should be their right to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by TRshootem:
I just wanna know why these cake buyers aren't asking the local mooslim baker for the same service. Me thinks I know the answer...

That would be interesting to watch, a battle between gay rights and Muslim rights. I am not sure that would happen because traditional American values are their common enemy that they are both trying to defeat.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

If you don't like the customer then just ask them for their date and then tell them you are already overbooked for that month, or, price them out of the deal, or if the cake is too risque in nature just tell them your bakery doesn't do that type of products, anything but telling them no, because you're the gay.....

Or bake them a cake with half gallon of vanilla extract in it.

Yes, lots of vanilla extract plus charge $2,000 or more. I bet they would not pay for the cake, and keep looking for another victim.

And why did it take so very long for some judge to figure this out? Of these types of cases, this is the first I've heard of a ruling that supports an individual's Constitutional rights. Common Goddamned sense is far from common these days.

Maybe post a sign behind the counter:

"All proceeds from same sex wedding cakes will be donated to Westboro Baptist Church"

It is worthwhile to listen to the oral argument at the Supreme Court, a link to which I posted at the time.

It sits at an awkward junction of Constitutional rights, the limits of each of which are in some doubt right now. The Justices don’t seem to have a real good idea of how to resolve it all, judging by the discussions at argument.

Oh, yeah, it's a real puzzler, huh? Yeah, it's going to take the greatest of legal minds to come up with an answer to the question- should a business owner be forced to engage in business that goes counter to their religious beliefs.

Yes, we must gather the best and the brightest and let them delve deep into jurisprudence. Perhaps, somewhere along the way and if they can be bothered to do so, some of these great legal minds might be convinced to LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION!!!

Of course, what do I know? I don't have a law degree, so I'm in uncharted waters here. I can't read, either. If only I could read, I could perhaps find the answer in the CONSTITUTION!!!!

For fuck's sake!!



And oh, do make sure that when all these great legal scholars are gathered to fathom the imponderable, they wear those little reading glasses. They need to wear them so that at key moments, they can take off the glasses, then utter great wisdom while all others in the room listen in rapt silence. This makes for great drama. Hell, even an illiterate dolt like me knows that.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Why can't I as a business owner choose who I will or will not do business with because its my business?.

There was an issue many years ago wherein Blacks would be denied service solely because they were Black. It was not right, but a horrible thing happened - the government decided to "fix the problem." Ever since then, the government has determined what rental property owners must do with their property, and now, they are extending their tyranny out to businesses.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the bais of race, color, religion, etc. in public accommodations, among other things. There are numerous sections, amendments, situations which have been litigated and almost always upheld by increasing majorities.

quote:

Why can't I as a business owner choose who I will or will not do business with because its my business?

You are limited to choose on a non prohibited basis, and be able to prove it.

Surely at this point, no one needs that explanation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...l_Rights_Act_of_1964.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Now, sue for costs relative to the law suit.

Plus some really hefty penalties against the ones who took them to court over that shit!.