Judge: “Gay” rights trump First Amendment

WND -Another judge has ruled homosexuals have a right not to be offended that supersedes First Amendment religious rights.

In the latest case, a Denver cake baker must make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding even if the message being conveyed in the ceremony violates his religious beliefs.

“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs,” Nicolle Martin, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said.

“Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free. If the government can take away our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away.”

The ruling came from Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer in Denver against Jack Phillips, a Christian who owns Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo.

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., cited conflicting religious beliefs when he declined in July 2012 to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception. Photo/Denver Post

Phillips told the homosexual couple he couldn’t make the cake because he believes marriage between a man and a woman. The couple subsequently filed a discrimination claim arguing that Phillips’ refusal was based on their sexual orientation.

However, Phillips insisted he refused because of the message conveyed by the wedding cake.

“I told them I don’t do wedding cakes for same-sex marriages,” Phillips told WND. “I then let them know I would make any other kind of cake for them, just not a wedding cake.”

He explained to WND there are cakes for other circumstance he also would refuse to make.

“If a couple were to come in and ask me to do an erotic cake for a wedding I would refuse to do that as well,” he said. “These are my personal standards taken from Jesus Christ and the Bible.”

The case centers on whose rights take precedence.
Read the full story:

This entry was posted in General News, State / Local and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Judge: “Gay” rights trump First Amendment

  1. joe says:

    “Another judge has ruled homosexuals have a right not to be offended that supersedes First Amendment religious rights” is wholly inconsistent with the judge’s order, making this statement nothing short of an outright lie. But what’s truth when you have an agenda?

  2. The judge acknowledged in his ruling that Phillips would bake any kind of cake, just not a “gay” wedding cake. This statement shows that regardless of the ruling he did not discriminate based on orientation.

    Furthermore, the idea that as the judge said that “only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings” is ridiculous. By this logic it could also be said “only opposite-sex couples engage in opposite-sex weddings.” Try telling that to Rock Hudson’s wife. He was a homosexual yet got married in a ceremony outside of his sexual orientation.

    Another example is Colorado’s new civil union law. Nothing would prevent two heterosexuals of the same gender to enter into a civil union in order to obtain the benefit.

    By the way, Phillips also refuses to make Halloween cakes, do you think he should be forced to do so if a Wiccan came in wanting one?

  3. joe says:

    The judge’s ruling had nothing to do with a “right not to be offended.” It was based on a Colorado statute, which prohibits “places of public accommodation” from refusing service to a customer based on the customer’s age, race, national origin, and, yes, sexual orientation, et al.. The baker denied service based on the customers’ sexual orientation alone, not what the cake would have said. A cake, without more, is not speech. The baker was not asked to produce a cake that included any specific words, statements, or endorsements–this is undisputed fact according to the judge’s ruling. See Findings of Fact, #8.

    Your agenda does not relieve you from the Biblical prohibition against lying.

    Men and women, who have no ability to reproduce and no affinity for each other, are free to marry and receive marital benefits, which is no different than the heterosexuals who want to “enter into a civil union in order to obtain the benefit.” Is this an argument against heterosexual marriage?

    Sorry, Brett and Jack, you’ve lost this one badly.

  4. Joe says:

    Why so scared?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *