Frankly, I don’t think much of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) these days. I have yet to see their rulings of constitutionality reference the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or quote from our founding fathers, even when their rulings have been correct. Yet, finally, there has been a siding by SCOTUS in the ongoing matter of Christian bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, who have been under constant tyrannical attack by the state of Oregon.
SCOTUS ruled in 2018 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop against sodomites who attempted to force the backer, Jack Phillips, to bake a cake for them, even though his conscience, guided by the Scriptures of the Bible, dictated something else. Keep in mind that Mr. Phillips had provided services to the sodomite prior in general business before requesting the cake for a perversion of a wedding.
Now, the Supreme Court has told a lower court to reconsider their dispute against the Oregon bakers in light of that 2018 decision.
“This is a victory for Aaron and Melissa Klein and for religious liberty for all Americans,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, a cause lawyering firm that represents the Klein family. “The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government. The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated.”
The Daily Caller reports:
The Oregon case is in many respects a redux of the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, which pertained to an Evangelical baker in Colorado. Though the justices found for the Colorado baker because a state panel displayed hostility toward his religious beliefs, the Court did not say whether conservative religious believers can cite the First Amendment in refusing to accommodate a same-sex wedding. Like the Colorado baker, the Kleins say forcing them to create a cake violates
Monday’s dispute arose in Oregon in 2013 when Aaron and Melissa Klein, who created custom baked goods through their business “Sweet Cakes by Melissa,” declined to produce a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman. The Kleins are Christians who believe marriage was instituted as a union of men and women.
Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint with a state anti-discrimination panel. In turn, the Kleins argued their actions were protected under the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise of religion clauses.
In a subsequent proceeding, state officials found that the Kleins violated Oregon’s public accommodations law. The Kleins were ordered to pay out a $135,000 fine and cease discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. They have since closed their business because of the financial penalty.
A state court in Oregon upheld that decision, finding that cakes do not deserve full First Amendment protection because they incorporate many non-expressive elements, and whatever expression they convey is not imputed to the creator. The court further found that precedent barred the Kleins’ free exercise claim.
As I Have asked before, where are armed Christian men who will come to the defense of their brothers and sisters in light of this tyranny?
Take a look at these homosexuals here and for once, there are telling the truth.
This is not about a cake.
It’s about normalizing a criminal act, just like Communists proclaimed decades ago and something former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov spoke of concerning our downfall back in the 70s.
The DC goes on to remind us:
On remand from the justices, the Oregon court will search the case record for evidence of anti-religious animus against the Kleins. The case lingered on the high court’s docket for months, an indication that there were protracted internal debates about how to process the dispute.
The Supreme Court followed a similar course in 2018 with a like controversy in Washington state, where florist Barronelle Stutzman refused a request for floral arrangements at the wedding of a longtime gay patron. Stutzman’s case was held in abeyance while the high court weighed the Masterpiece dispute. Eventually the justices returned the matter to a Washington state court with orders to reconsider it in light of Masterpiece.
The Washington Supreme Court again ruled against Stutzman on June 6, so Stutzman will file a second appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, the question of First Amendment defenses to public accommodations laws requiring businesses to serve gay patrons will return to the Court in the coming months.
Apart from the long-running controversy over religious dissenters and gay couples, the Supreme Court will decide if a federal workplace nondiscrimination law covers LGBT employees.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bans employment discrimination based on sex. Though federal courts have historically rejected arguments that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination reaches LGBT workers, two federal appeals courts changed course beginning in 2017. Those panels said that anti-gay bias is a form of sex-stereotyping in which employers punish workers for failing to adhere to gender norms, which Title VII prohibits.
Monday’s case is No. 18-547 Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
That’s fine and dandy, but the First Amendment protects discrimination.
Yep, I’ve written on it and so has Judge Andrew Napolitano. The fact that people are allowed to freely assemble and that Congress can’t pass a law regarding that assembly then trickles down into every area where we assemble, whether at home or in business, especially when it comes to capital criminals whom many states continue to have laws against the crime of sodomy, or crimes against nature.
The Kleins, as well as Jack Phillips, have been vindicated. Now, it’s up to the people to support them against the enemies of their own states, the so-called representatives that have been elected.
May God grant them courage and grace to defend their neighbors against oppression.
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.