Gay wedding cake at center of Colorad...

Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals Court case

There are 3314 comments on the Connecticut Post story from Jul 7, 2015, titled Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals Court case. In it, Connecticut Post reports that:

In this March 10, 2014 file photo, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips decorates a cake inside his store, in Lakewood, Colo. Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, is to argue Tuesday, July 7, 2015 before the Colorado Court of Appeals that his religious beliefs should protect him from sanctions against his business.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Connecticut Post.

First Prev
of 166
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Jul 7, 2015
And my religious beliefs should protect me from prosecution when I rob a bank...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#2 Jul 7, 2015
WeTheSheeple wrote:
And my religious beliefs should protect me from prosecution when I rob a bank...
I'm wondering how this will in turn turn out, my guess is Phillips will probably lose here, but so much has changed since this case started.

I mean Phillips DOESN'T dispute the claim of discrimination, and now more has come out that this was NOT the first time, just the first time a complaint was filed.........I still DON'T see him coming out ahead as it would throw a monkey wrench in already decided cases.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#4 Jul 7, 2015
Raoul wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you wear the strap-on penis or does your husband?
Obsess much, Raoul?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5 Jul 7, 2015
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm wondering how this will in turn turn out, my guess is Phillips will probably lose here, but so much has changed since this case started.
I mean Phillips DOESN'T dispute the claim of discrimination, and now more has come out that this was NOT the first time, just the first time a complaint was filed.........I still DON'T see him coming out ahead as it would throw a monkey wrench in already decided cases.
IDK. Notwithstanding their protests to the contrary, the five justices in Hobby Lobby have opened Pandora's box. I'm afraid we'll see a lot of problems before anyone puts the lid back on.
Dan

Warren, NJ

#6 Jul 7, 2015
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
IDK. Notwithstanding their protests to the contrary, the five justices in Hobby Lobby have opened Pandora's box. I'm afraid we'll see a lot of problems before anyone puts the lid back on.
The guy deserves his day in court.

The state of Colorado discriminated against Craig and Mullins in 2012 in a much more egregious manner than Phillips did. They wouldn't issue the couple a marriage license. Craig and Mullins could (and did) at least obtain a cake from someone else. No alternative for the marriage license.
Mullahing It Over

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Jul 7, 2015
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
IDK. Notwithstanding their protests to the contrary, the five justices in Hobby Lobby have opened Pandora's box. I'm afraid we'll see a lot of problems before anyone puts the lid back on.
Kennedy and then possibly Roberts would be the only ones of the current Justices whose position on this would be in any doubt, imo.

The ACLU's public optimism about these sorts of cases generally notwithstanding, I can't wait for the reduction-to-absurdity case of some Pagan baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a fundamentalist Christian's wedding...on the basis of religious beliefs, obviously.
Mullahing It Over

Philadelphia, PA

#9 Jul 7, 2015
I see I jumped ahead a bit in the level of court. Maybe it won't even have to reach SCOTUS and my attempt at analysis will be moot.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The guy deserves his day in court.
The state of Colorado discriminated against Craig and Mullins in 2012 in a much more egregious manner than Phillips did. They wouldn't issue the couple a marriage license. Craig and Mullins could (and did) at least obtain a cake from someone else. No alternative for the marriage license.
Phillips will lose on appeal. And SCOTUS will decline the case, just as they declined similar cases.

But incidents will keep occurring, and the religious freaks will continue to file suits. Eventually, they hope, one will make it. But they have to develop a lot of case law to overturn already settled issues. Hobby Lobby was the first step in that endeavor. I have no doubt that constitutional lawyers on the side of ADF have a plan to get there. Along the way, people like Phillips will be used and discarded.

I doubt the bigots will succeed in court ever. That would only occur by throwing out the entire public accommodations regime. And there is no wide-spread support for that.
Dan

New York, NY

#11 Jul 7, 2015
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Phillips will lose on appeal. And SCOTUS will decline the case, just as they declined similar cases.
But incidents will keep occurring, and the religious freaks will continue to file suits. Eventually, they hope, one will make it. But they have to develop a lot of case law to overturn already settled issues. Hobby Lobby was the first step in that endeavor. I have no doubt that constitutional lawyers on the side of ADF have a plan to get there. Along the way, people like Phillips will be used and discarded.
I doubt the bigots will succeed in court ever. That would only occur by throwing out the entire public accommodations regime. And there is no wide-spread support for that.
Why do you assume he will lose, given your note of the HL case?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12 Jul 7, 2015
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
IDK. Notwithstanding their protests to the contrary, the five justices in Hobby Lobby have opened Pandora's box. I'm afraid we'll see a lot of problems before anyone puts the lid back on.
That's where you need to read the Hobby Lobby ruling......it clearly states one CAN'T use their religious beliefs to discriminate.......and it was narrowly ruled with regards to SPECIFIC contraceptives.

Some have tried to get the religious exemption and have been denied and SCOTUS denied cert to the photographer from New Mexico back in October......so, I still DON'T see him winning!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume he will lose, given your note of the HL case?
Phillips will lose because of the Hobby Lobby ruling!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#14 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The guy deserves his day in court.
The state of Colorado discriminated against Craig and Mullins in 2012 in a much more egregious manner than Phillips did. They wouldn't issue the couple a marriage license. Craig and Mullins could (and did) at least obtain a cake from someone else. No alternative for the marriage license.
The guy deserves to be fined for breaking the law......the State of Colorado DIDN'T discriminate against the Gay couple and it DOESN'T matter if the couple were married in Colorado or not, the fact is they were married and NO one should have to be married to order a wedding cake.......at the end of the day, Jack broke the law!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume he will lose, given your note of the HL case?
Because the precedents are numerous and consistent. No circuit court or appeals court is going to overturn such well-established precedent. Only SCOTUS can do that. And SCOTUS has recently turned down similar cases.
Dan

New York, NY

#16 Jul 7, 2015
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Phillips will lose because of the Hobby Lobby ruling!!!
I read the HL ruling as HL not being forced to do something that would violate their religious beliefs.

Phillips here likewise refused to do something and was penalized. I assume he would claim the same latitude HL was granted-to not be compelled to do something that violated religious belief.
Dan

Warren, NJ

#17 Jul 7, 2015
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The guy deserves to be fined for breaking the law......the State of Colorado DIDN'T discriminate against the Gay couple and it DOESN'T matter if the couple were married in Colorado or not, the fact is they were married and NO one should have to be married to order a wedding cake.......at the end of the day, Jack broke the law!!!
Sure they did. The couple could not get a marriage license in CO at the time of the cake matter. The state of CO denied them the right to marry in the state of CO.

The same state that claimed Jack discriminated and penalized him also discriminated against the couple, the difference being that the couple could get a cake from someone else. No recourse for them on the CO marriage license.

All the exclamation points you can muster don't change that.
Dan

Warren, NJ

#18 Jul 7, 2015
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the precedents are numerous and consistent. No circuit court or appeals court is going to overturn such well-established precedent. Only SCOTUS can do that. And SCOTUS has recently turned down similar cases.
If what you say is true all the time, there would be no gay marriage today. It's existence in the US is entirely dependent upon court action that overturned precedent and standing state laws.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#19 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the HL ruling as HL not being forced to do something that would violate their religious beliefs.
Phillips here likewise refused to do something and was penalized. I assume he would claim the same latitude HL was granted-to not be compelled to do something that violated religious belief.
In the Hobby Lobby ruling it does state by Justice Alito, I believe that one's religious beliefs CAN'T be used to DISCRIMINATE.......that is what Jack did in violation of the Anti-Discrimination law of Colorado!!!

This is what you DON'T understand, the Hobby Lobby company was fighting to prevent from complying with requirements for FOUR specific contraceptives they believe commit abortion, but not to offended by the same FOUR specific contraceptives to invest 73 million dollars in for the company's 401k plan.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#20 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
If what you say is true all the time, there would be no gay marriage today. It's existence in the US is entirely dependent upon court action that overturned precedent and standing state laws.
There is NO "GAY" marriage, and SCOTUS followed previous rulings regarding marriage as a Fundamental right. The States NO more had the right to place racial restrictions on a Fundamental right as they had to place gender restrictions on that Fundamental right!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#21 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
If what you say is true all the time, there would be no gay marriage today. It's existence in the US is entirely dependent upon court action that overturned precedent and standing state laws.
The point is that there is a long case history leading up to Obergefell. These changes don't just occur because several justices want to change the law. Allow me to give you a quick (and non-professional) run-down of the case history:

In 1973, a case was filed with SCOTUS known as Baker v. Nelson. SCOTUS declined to hear the case, leaving stand a Minnesota Supreme Court decision that Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell had no right to marry under the constitution. The case was tersely dismissed "for lack of a federal question." For 42 years, this stood as precedent preventing lower US courts from recognizing a right to marry. So what happened after 1973? Several things:

Romer v. Evans established that GLBT's had the federal constitutional right to petition the government, which Colorado had tried to prevent through a state constitutional amendment. This was the first time GLBT's had been found to have any rights under the constitution.

Lawrence v. Texas further established GLBT rights to intimate association. Before that, SCOTUS had upheld the right of states to arrest and prosecute intimate same-sex relations.(I believe ALL states had anti-sodomy laws at the time of Baker v. Nelson. No state had any protections for GLBT's.)

Congress passed DOMA during the 90's. This was, to my knowledge, the first time the federal government had established a criterion for marriage different from the states.

Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, followed by several other states. Note that the first states to legalize same-sex marriage did so based on state constitutions. Baker v. Nelson precluded filing a federal case.

New York recognized marriages from other jurisdictions, even though it didn't allow same-sex marriages until several years later. This set up the conflict between Baker v. Nelson and federal law: The claim that there was no federal question was clearly dispatched by Congress passing DOMA. That conflict was moot until states began recognizing same-sex marriages.

Edith Windsor was widowed in New York State by Thea Spyer. The couple had substantial assets which were taxed by the federal government as if the couple were unrelated. In ruling that DOMA overstepped federal authority, Justice Kennedy cited many rights that made it obvious that disparate treatment of same-sex couples was unconstitutional.

Dozens of lower courts read the Windsor opinion and concluded that Baker v. Nelson was no longer ruling precedent. Last month, SCOTUS concurred.

Thus the Obergefell decision was the result of a series of decisions that changed the legal landscape for same-sex couples. Along the way, lawyers for GLBT plaintiffs carefully directed their arguments to provide the supports on which Obergefell rested

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#22 Jul 7, 2015
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they did. The couple could not get a marriage license in CO at the time of the cake matter. The state of CO denied them the right to marry in the state of CO.
The same state that claimed Jack discriminated and penalized him also discriminated against the couple, the difference being that the couple could get a cake from someone else. No recourse for them on the CO marriage license.
All the exclamation points you can muster don't change that.
The Couple DIDN'T need a marriage license in Colorado as they were ALREADY married in Massachusetts to begin with and truly NO one needs to be getting married or be married to order a wedding cake, therefore that part is IRRELEVANT!!!

The fact is that the Anti-Discrimination policy stated that one CAN'T be discriminated against with regards to their sexual orientation. Jack provided wedding cakes to paying customers WITHOUT regard to whether or not they had SINNED, yet denied that same service to Gays and Lesbians......that is why the complaint was filed against him and why he was found guilty of violating the law........he will more than likely NOT win here and will more than likely appeal to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS has already denied cert to the photographer from New Mexico!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 166
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lakewood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker on same... 5 min Critical Eye 974
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 65,251
News Husky bit Colorado womana s face and handler fl... 5 hr Southern Yankee 1
Kylie Bearse Sun who 6
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Aug 18 henu 30,683
News Denver Police Investigating Murders of Three Ho... Aug 18 BILLION HEIR 2
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Aug 17 BILLION HEIR 754

Lakewood Jobs

Personal Finance

Lakewood Mortgages