Great America, Hot News

SCOTUS Will Hear Baker’s Refusal to Bake Gay Wedding Cake

4 12


This is going to be, quote, “bigly”!

I can easily predict the vote of the left side in the Supreme Court and how they will try not to rule based on laws and the Constitution.

The “bigly” part of this case will be those Justices on the right/moderate right…which of them caves in to sentiment.

Justice Roberts legislation from the bench, again?

Justice Kennedy swing vote?

Stay tuned!


On Monday the Supreme Court announced that it will take up the case of a Christian baker who refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. In the case of Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court will rule on whether the baker did indeed violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws or whether the laws violate the First Amendment protections to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Court had previously avoided ruling on similar cases, but as more states have passed anti-discrimination laws the number of similar cases has only increased. It’s clear that the Supreme Court must finally rule on this issue.

Either way, a ruling is certain to have massive legal and cultural implications, and it may prove to be a landmark ruling similar to that of Roe v. Wade, with the ramifications being felt long into the future. Many conservative Christians fear a major loss of religious freedom should the lower court rulings be upheld. What may make ruling in favor of the anti-discrimination laws more probable is the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled for same-sex marriage to be recognized as equal and legitimate and lawfully binding in every state.

Then again, the fact that the primary issue is concern over freedom of speech and freedom of religion, two of the most fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution, there is hope for the restoration and protection of American Liberty.


About the author / 



  1. uniwersity of barsoom at helium planetary observatory engineer June 27, 2017 at 8:31 AM -  Reply

    This is the same SCOTUS…

    … who had no problem for two decades remaining very silent on DOMA…

    … until Commie BARAMA’s “tent of many colours” chose not to defend that Federal Law Wild Bil signed whilst Monica was finding legal arguments under his oval office desk??

  2. Angus Rangus June 27, 2017 at 8:39 AM -  Reply

    And by “swing vote”…

    … can we guess all three apparent FEMALE Justices…

    … already mailed in their vote…

    … despite no reference found that mentions any of our Founders considering this subject when they talked about the EQUALITY of all MEN??

    HOW exactly is this very different from the ice cream parlors prominently door signing… “” no shirts/no shoes… no service””?

    OR, more globally… “”WE retain the right to refuse service to anyone””.

    If I’m allergic to ‘cats’… does that mean I have to prove my health depends on not doing plumbing work in houses with ‘cats’…
    … even IF that house contains no peanut pathogens or morbidly obese ‘cats’ otherwise??

    OK… IF I really can’t tolerate being around red-haired Irish females… do I lose my license to practice tattooing ??

    INDEED… all of my Pollack friends agree with my sentiments… we just don’t look that good in rainbow any thang??

  3. Old Jim June 27, 2017 at 8:45 AM -  Reply

    Let’s pretend “THEY ARE BORNE THIS WAY”…

    … do you thunk none of our Founders might have noticed this phenomenon…

    … at the same time they specifically respected the property rights of Slaves – for 20 years before making further importation illegal …
    … gave only male property owners voting rights in the new Federal situation…
    … and made states “exclusively sovereign” on all but those enumerated powers of the new Federal GOVT – which had ZERO revenue to do any thang back then??

    Oh… wait… they were just old white men setting out on a journey of discovering long discarded principles of Democracy??

  4. uniwersity of barsoom at helium planetary observatory short order grill technician June 27, 2017 at 8:55 AM -  Reply


    … the same SCOTUS chose NOT to hear the case of Kaleefornyans…

    … and eight other feckless states…

    … who didn’t bother implementing SCOTUS clarification of 2nd Amendment inalienable rights from Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010…

    … most obviously denigrating Justice Scalia’s most important work?

    Are they waiting on AG Jeff Sessions to haul Chicago and Washington DC back to court for wantonly ignoring the orders in those opinions??

Leave a reply

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