Democrats, showing their absolute disdain for religious freedom, filed an Amicus Brief with the court, scheduled to hear a “discrimination” case brought by a pair of gays, against a Colorado-based baker who refused to bake a cake for their “wedding.” The document was signed by over 200 Democrats.
Lead by two gay politicians, Senator Tammy Baldwin and Rep Sean Patrick Maloney, the legal document – written to bolster the case against religious freedom – was signed by 36 Senators and 175 members of the House of Representatives. Among the signers were the two top Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
“I support religious freedom and the freedom of full equality for every American. Our religious beliefs don’t entitle any of us to discriminate against others and I don’t believe that any American should face discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation—whether it’s at a bakery, a hotel, or a doctor’s office,” Baldwin commented. “It is simply wrong to discriminate against any American based on who they are or who they love. If an individual has the ability to pay for a service and is not in violation of the law, they should not be turned away.”
The case, “Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission”, in concerns the right of a Christian cake shop owner Jack Phillips, who had refused to sell a wedding cake to Charlie Craig and David Mullins. In response, Craig and Mullins filed these charges in front of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, with a pretense that their civil rights had been denied.
The case centers around Phillips’s First Amendment freedom of expression, and religious liberty. Phillips’ cakes are culinary works of art, and he believes that the obligation to make cakes independent of their use infringes on his own freedom of expression. The gays, Craig and Mullins, contend that this violates their “civil rights,” and stupidly refuse to simply go find a cake elsewhere.
The case has drawn a lot of attention as the latest attempt by the LGBT lobby to chip away at the Constitution, following 2012’s United States v. Windsor and 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges.
These Democrats claim that a ruling affirming Phillips’ Constitutional rights would permit unchecked discrimination, and lead to an apocalyptic dystopia of violent hatred.
“To allow the exemptions sought by Petitioners would effectively create a constitutional rule condoning broad-based discriminatory conduct while hamstringing Congress from enacting comprehensive nondiscrimination legislation in the future,” they wrote.
Rather, they contend, that the religious concerns of Phillips and others are overruled by the desire to have the all-powerful state strictly and harshly enforce perfectly equal treatment for all.
The “couple” claims that, “At a minimum, the obligation to recognize basic civil rights and practice equal treatment is at least the ‘cost’ of doing business. Put simply, doing business in a society of equals necessitates equal treatments.”
Democrats went on to dishonestly and inaccurately claim that Masterpiece’s argument is reminiscent of those who made against passage of title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which had banned discrimination against African Americans in the restaurants, shops, and other “places of public accommodation.”