Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Court Rules in Favor of Christian Baker

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

A California judge ruled Monday evening that a Christian baker who faced losing her business because she refuses to bake cakes for same-sex "weddings" cannot be compelled by the state to do so.

Is the tide is turning on religious freedom?


You will recall the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear another case similar to this last December.

The case---Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission-- involves Christian baker Jack Phillips whose biblical beliefs do not allow him to celebrate so-called same-sex "marriage."

Jack has maintained that he will not use his artistic gifts to celebrate something that violates his biblical beliefs.

The homosexual activists have insisted that Christian bakers and florists should be compelled to bake cakes or decorate with flowers for all "marriages" not only heterosexual ones.

In this Bakersfield case, Christian baker Cathy Miller was facing discrimination charges for the same reasons as Phillips---deeply held biblical religious beliefs.

Two lesbians came to her shop to order a "wedding" cake. Cathy respectfully declined because of her biblical beliefs.

Rather than going to another bakery, the lesbians went after the Christian.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing petitioned for a restraining order against Cathy and her bakery trying to force her to bake the cake---demanding she bake cakes for same-sex "weddings" or stop making cakes altogether if she refused.

Cathy told the press, "My conscience doesn't allow me to participate in certain activities that are contrary to my biblical beliefs. I pray we can all come to an understanding so that we can continue to get along."

Hardly the words of a troublemaker or homophobe.

The problem in these cases has been that the agenda of the homosexual activists is more import than the cake, or flowers, or photographs, etc.

Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled Monday that "her decision to refuse to bake cakes for same-sex weddings is protected by the First Amendment."

He said, "The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

"Furthermore, here", he says, "the State minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talented baker who does not share Miller's belief. Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield. The fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios [the lesbians] feel they will suffer indignity from Miller's choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

This cuts to the very heart of the matter. I don't know about this case specifically, but I do know for a fact that bakers and florists here in the Northwest have been targeted by homosexual activists who knew the business owners beliefs before they approached them, then after being declined have punished the Christian by filing charges against them---and then inciting others to boycott the business and picket the business with an intent to shut it down and bankrupt it.

This was the case with Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon.

Oregon Court of Appeals Judge Chris Garret ruled last December that their sincerely held beliefs were not enough for them to refuse to bake cakes for same-sex "weddings."

Garret said, "The Kleins seek an exemption based on their sincere religious opposition to same-sex marriage; but those with sincere religious objections to marriage between people of different races, ethnicities, or faiths could just as readily demand the same exception. The Kleins do not offer a principled basis for limiting their requested exemption in the manner that they propose, except to argue that there are 'decent and honorable' reasons, grounded in religious faith, for opposing same-sex marriage."

This is the narrative that President Obama pushed, and has become the mantra for the attack on religious freedom---particularly biblical "Christian" religious freedom.

The Kleins lost their business in 2015 after they were ordered by Oregon's Bureau of Labor and industries to pay damages totaling $135,000 for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex "wedding"---a cake that any number of other bakeries in Gresham would have been happy to bake.

The Bakersfield judge has taken a different look at religious freedom and accommodation.

Judge Garret says the state must ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination and no vendor can may refuse to sell their wares or goods based on the gender identification of their customer.

However, he makes the case that while this would apply to, say, tires or other commodities in shops, this is different.

"The difference here," he says, "is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

This is exactly the case Christian lawyers have been making on behalf of their florist and baker clients---including the case made to the Supreme Court last December in the Jack Phillips case.

Daniel Piedra, the director of the Freedom of Conscience Fund who defended Miller in this case, said in a statement yesterday, "This is a major victory for faith and freedom because a judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law."

The tide is turning.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Faithful. Be Prayerful.


8 comments:

  1. Oregon state L & I should be sued. Somebody there should likely loose their job, but this is a turning point, finally. Hope these people sue whoever, and get it all back. Hope it's enough so people will not try that again, unless it's God's will that they just suffer the wrong. I just hate to see people have to suffer such wrongs. It robs all of us, every American.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am ecstatic at this common-sense ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A California Judge ruled this way? Must be a Judge in the New California state that has been proposed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fair punishment for infringing on the rights of others is to make restitution.
    If I deprive one of their property, I should replace it.
    If I injure another, I should pay their medical bills and compensate the person for any lost wages.

    When another person refuses to bake me a cake, what did I lose? How would anyone make restitution?

    It comes down to hurt feeling, anger and a desire for revenge.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Up until this court decision, the other decisions have all had the elements of force others to their will, have their way with them and then make them pay if they did not submit

    The homosexual activist keep trying to make this about them, when it is about what "IS" marriage

    Out of 325 million people in the United States, with a clear majority in 34 states, as high as 70% of the voting population, defining marriage as one man, one woman, we get ONE VOTE in the Supreme Court to make a majority to dictate to us all what is now the definition without any foundation from any historical source, religion, tradition, custom, political organization, reason, NOTHING for it to mean whatever they want it to mean from their meaningless reading of the 14th amendment

    This is most definitely an assault upon religion but it goes much deeper than that, it is an assault upon the very foundation which this entire culture is built up.

    The foundation is what we hold in common, and three types of marriage is we have less in common, a lot less, and without this common bond, trust is lost, and when you cannot communicate with words because the words have lost their meaning, we end up with why all the cities with the highest murder rates are all run by liberal Democrats, they think critical thinking is to discriminating, every opinion has equal value in their eyes, when it is just the path to ruin

    ReplyDelete
  6. Up until this court decision, the other decisions have all had the elements of force others to their will, have their way with them and then make them pay if they did not submit

    The homosexual activist keep trying to make this about them, when it is about what "IS" marriage

    Out of 325 million people in the United States, with a clear majority in 34 states, as high as 70% of the voting population, defining marriage as one man, one woman, we get ONE VOTE in the Supreme Court to make a majority to dictate to us all what is now the definition without any foundation from any historical source, religion, tradition, custom, political organization, reason, NOTHING for it to mean whatever they want it to mean from their meaningless reading of the 14th amendment

    This is most definitely an assault upon religion but it goes much deeper than that, it is an assault upon the very foundation which this entire culture is built up.

    The foundation is what we hold in common, and three types of marriage is we have less in common, a lot less, and without this common bond, trust is lost, and when you cannot communicate with words because the words have lost their meaning, we end up with why all the cities with the highest murder rates are all run by liberal Democrats, they think critical thinking is to discriminating, every opinion has equal value in their eyes, when it is just the path to ruin

    ReplyDelete
  7. One man, one woman, marriage makes for a more perfect Union. It's also just. It's in the Preamble to our constitution. We need to remind our law makers and I hope the judges are aware of it too. If they tested everything in front of them by our constitution, we should do well. So much today fails the entire Preamble, that which was ordained by the people. None of the rest matters if it is not within the ordination of the people, which is a very important part of our constitution. If it goes contrary to the Preamble to the constitution, how can it be argued by any other part of the constitution? If it fails the test, it fails.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When evil wins a battle, or even gains ground through compromise, evil will always increase its pressure against good as a result. The “opportunity” to gain even more ground against a "weakened" foe has always been the m.o. of the evil one.

    When good wins a battle against evil, good "people" have a tendency to rest and savor their satisfaction that "good has prevailed". This is exactly what the enemy suggests to us that we should do, for this is what serves his purposes.

    NOW is the time for all persons of Christian and Jewish faith to "increase" our efforts to eradicate this evil. We cannot expect our Lord to do this and then put the responsibility on Him when He does not do so. It is up to us to work while petitioning His assistance..

    Our voices must be heard by more people in more venues. Our "gentle and respectful" voices, not promoting harm to come to anyone, not promoting the concept of vengeance, but simply promoting the concept that true people of faith choose to agree with God instead of those who do not agree with God. Those who attempt to force others to agree with their values through intimidation and/or punishment of various forms are actually victims of evil in the eyes of our Lord. We must pray for these victims, we do not hate them or wish to harm them in response to their efforts to harm us.

    Our message should be clear and consistent. Then....we need to massively increase our prayers. In the final analysis, we cannot expect any assistance in our plight from our Lord unless we go to Him in together as His body in prayer, humbly with broken spirits in the name of love for those who are lost.

    He told us to love our enemies, not only because it is both kind and forgiving, but because that is where the true spiritual strength lies.

    Truth is a lonely warrior,

    G>T>

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.