Judge SHOCKS California By Ruling AGAINST Same-Sex Couple

I find this “let’s sue bakeries out of existence for not making us a gay cake” thing absolutely RIDICULOUS.

If I’m being perfectly honest, I think these gay couples are specifically targeting bakeries they know will be uncomfortable baking them a cake.

Otherwise, why not just go somewhere else? There are PLENTY of bakeries that would be THRILLED to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Why wouldn’t you want to take your business and share your special day – with someone who feels positively about your union?

That’s what doesn’t make sense to me. That’s why I think it’s all a stunt.

Anyway, a California judge just issued a ruling on ANOTHER gay-cake case… and it’s legitimately perfect.

BREAKING: Kern County Judge rules AGAINST same-sex couple suing bakery owner for refusing to bake them a wedding cake. Judge says distinction is that “the cake in question is not yet baked.” Ruling excerpts–> pic.twitter.com/LUUCky6yEn

— Danny Freeman (@DannyEFreeman) February 6, 2018

The Kern County Judge argues this case is primarily about free speech–> pic.twitter.com/DcMIybCpda

— Danny Freeman (@DannyEFreeman) February 6, 2018

“A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis,” writes Kern County Judge David Lampe. pic.twitter.com/CZPJdIrEbR

— Danny Freeman (@DannyEFreeman) February 6, 2018

“Miller is not the only wedding cake creator in Bakersfield,” continues Judge Lampe. pic.twitter.com/xSgYBohyn4

— Danny Freeman (@DannyEFreeman) February 6, 2018

You can read the Kern County ruling here–> https://t.co/WYGIhEtU0r

— Danny Freeman (@DannyEFreeman) February 6, 2018

Here’s the ruling’s intro. The ENTIRE document can be found here. It’s brilliant… so it’s actually worth the read if you have a few minutes.

Emphasis is my own.

Introduction

The State of California brings this action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51, againstdefendants Cathy’s Creations, Inc. and Cathy Miller. Miller refuses to design and create wedding cakes to be used in the celebration of same sex marriages. She believes that such marriages violate her deeply held religious convictions. The State seeks to enjoin this conduct as unlawfully discriminatory. The State brings the action upon the administrative complaint of same-sex married couple, complainants Rodriquez-Del Rios.

The State cannot succeed on the facts presented as matter of law. The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the State’s interest in ensuring freely accessible marketplace. The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence. No public commentator in the marketplace of ideas may be forced by law to publish any opinion with which he disagrees in the name of equal  access. No person may be forced by the State to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance against her will. The law cannot compel anyone to stand for the National Anthem. No persons may be forced to advertise state-sponsored slogan on license plates against their religious beliefs.

This is PERFECT. I believe ALL should stand for the Anthem…  I ADAMANTLY believe that this cannot be legally compulsory.

I wonder what the people suing on behalf of the gay couple would say if someone suggested it be ILLEGAL to kneel for the anthem.

The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is laudable and necessary public goal. No vendor may refuse to sell their public goods, or services (not fundamentally founded upon speech) based upon their perception of the gender identification of their customer, even upon religious grounds. retail tire shop may not refuse to sell tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about tire. No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification. The difference here 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 cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of 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.

The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as sexual orientation. Would this court force baker who strongly favored GLBT rights to create and design wedding cake she had refused to Catholic couple, in her protest of the Catholic Church’s prescription against same-sex marriage? The answer is ”No.” This court has an obligation to protect Free Speech, regardless of whose foot the shoe is on. The court takes judicial notice, not of the content, but of the fact, that before the hearing on this matter there was gathering in front of the courthouse where both sides of the debate voiced their views. Would this court order one side or the other to be quiet? Such an order would be the stuff of tyranny. Both sides advocate with strong and heartfelt beliefs, and this court has duty to ensure that all are given the freedom to speak them. The government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.

1 No matter how the court should rule, one side or the other may be visited with some degree of hurt, insult, and indignity. The court finds that any harm here is equal to either complainants or defendant Miller, one way or the other. If anything, the harm to Miller is the greater harm, because it carries significant economic consequences. When one feels injured, insulted, or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self—inflicted. The most effective Free Speech in the family of our nation is when we speak and listen with respect. In any case, the court cannot guarantee that no one will be harmed when the law is enforced. Quite the contrary, when the law is
enforced, someone necessarily loses. Nevertheless, the court’s duty is to the law.

Whenever anyone exercises the right of Free Speech, someone else may be angered or hurt. This is the nature of free society under our Constitution.

In other words, IT IS NOT THE COURT’S JOB TO PROTECT YOUR FEELINGS, SNOWFLAKE.

This ruling is PERFECTION.

Personally I have NOTHING against gay people. In fact, I have NOTHING against gay marriage. I think it’s their business, and I really don’t care. We have WAY bigger fish to fry to get hung up on whether two consenting adults are allowed to file taxes jointly. (Because honestly, if they’re already living together, this is the main difference.)

If that is against your religion, that’s entirely fine with me too. I believe that you should in NO WAY be compelled to take part in or condone this union.

So yeah… this ruling is phenomenal.