Supreme Court evades another wedding cake dispute pitting gay rights against religious beliefs
The Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether an Oregon baker can refuse on religious grounds to design a cake for an immoral homosexual fake wedding – a question it carefully sidestepped last year.
HOMOSEXUAL FAKE MARRIAGE VS ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN BELIEFS
The case would have given the court's conservative majority the chance to expand upon its narrow 2018 ruling in favor of a Colorado baker. That decision did not apply beyond the case of Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who the justices said was discriminated against by state regulators.
The new case involves Sweetcakes by Melissa, a custom cake business operated by Melissa and Aaron Klein outside Portland, Oregon. They were fined $135,000 for refusing to serve lesbians Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, who sought a gay decorated cake for their lesbian commitment ceremony, whatever that is? As a result, the Kleins were forced to close their shop because of government bullying. Should any government have that right to close businesses on such questionable immoral grounds? No.
Rather than hear the case or deny it outright, the justices on Monday sent it back to a lower court to take its 2018 ruling into consideration. That represented a delaying tactic, saving the Kleins from the six-figure fine for now.
The high court is more likely to grant a different case raising the same issue – a dispute between a florist in Washington State and a homosexual couple – later this year or in 2020.
The Oregon challenge goes further than the previous one in asking the high court to overturn religious beliefs to comply with the new immoral homosexual agenda who threaten anybody who objects to their non-biological immoral relationships.
Conservative legal groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the Kleins, just as they have defended other religious freedom efforts in recent years.
On the other side are immoral homosexual bullies who use the law to push their agenda. Oregon regulators cited this new imposed and offensive homosexual state law in ruling against and fining the Kleins. Why? Because their Christian faith states clearly that homosexuality is a great sin and offense against a Holy righteous God.
The issue goes beyond cakes and bakers to other creative commercial establishments, such as florists, pastors, churches, adoption agencies, disability, and aged care centers, schools, photographers, and videographers. The question for the court is whether Christians can who refuse service to immoral homosexuals are supporting the gay agenda and going against their strictly held faith. Can the government force people to go against God's specific laws held by people who are followers of Christ?
The Supreme Court has weighed in twice on the broader subject of same-sex marriage. In 2013, it ruled the federal government must recognize gay and lesbian marriages in the 12 states where they were legal at the time. Two years later in a landmark decision, the justices extended same-sex marriage nationwide. But it was an indirect decision and faulty.
