Christian baker 1, lesbian couple zero

A devout Christian baker, Cathy Miller, who owns Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, CA, refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple. She referred them to another bakery and told them of her sincere religious belief that marriage is only supposed to be between one man and one woman, as the Bible says.

Catharine "Cathy" Miller's  “only motivation, at all times, was to act consistent with her sincere Christian beliefs about what the Bible teaches regarding marriage,” Kern County Judge Eric Bradshaw wrote in the verdict, The Bakersfield Californian reported Saturday.

“That motivation was not unreasonable, or arbitrary, nor did it emphasize irrelevant differences or perpetuate stereotypes,” Judge Bradshaw added, concluding that the state's Department of Fair Housing and Employment failed to prove Miller intentionally discriminated against Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio five years ago in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

“It’s been a long five years,” Miller was quoted as saying. “I’m hoping that in our community we can grow together … and we should understand that we shouldn’t push any agenda against anyone else.”

Fat chance of that--the woke Left does not want to 'grow together.' They have been demanding people with different beliefs, including religious beliefs, bow to their beliefs and often use courts to force their will on others.

The bakery wrote on Facebook, “We appreciate your prayers and support as we joyfully continue to do business with you in the future.”

The Thomas More Society, which supported Miller in the lawsuit, correctly labeled it “a First Amendment victory.”

“There’s a certain irony there, that a law intended to protect individuals from religious discrimination was used to discriminate against Cathy for her religious beliefs,” said Paul Jonna, Thomas More Society Special Counsel and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP.

“Cathy [Miller] believes in the Bible,” noted Jonna, noting that she was “harassed by opposing attorneys for her adherence to its teachings.”

In February, State Attorney Gregory Mann asked Miller, “Do you try to follow everything that the Bible says?” Miller responded, “I do my best, but I’m a sinner, but I do my best.” Mann then asked, “Do you follow some of the eating practices from the Old Testament in terms of not eating pigs, not eating shellfish, et cetera?”

Jonna pointed out that the state questioned the sincerity of Miller’s faith. “The fact that they called Miller’s open and sincerely held beliefs into question is almost as disturbing as quibbling over her status as an artist.”

Eileen Del Rio called the ruling “disappointing.”

“We anticipate that our appeal will have a different result,” she was quoted as saying.

When Del Rio wrote about the incident on Facebook in 2017, it led to a flood of criticism against Miller, to the point where she said she had to temporarily take down the Tastries Bakery website and Facebook page.

The state's Department of Fair Employment and Housing later petitioned the court to issue a restraining order against Miller and her bakery to force the company to make cakes for same-sex weddings or stop making wedding cakes altogether if she refused. In other words, cancel them out of business.

“My conscience doesn’t allow me to participate in certain activities that are contrary to my biblical beliefs. I pray that we can all come to an understanding so that we can continue to get along,” Miller explained at the time.

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Critical Race Theory, ignorance, The New York Times, and bovine flatulence. You also help me. Thanks.

* * *

In 2018, Superior Court Judge David Lampe rejected the state’s petition, saying Miller’s decision is protected by the First Amendment.

Can I get an 'amen.'

Tweet

Lesbian couple sues religious retirement home for denying them admission--they lose

St. Louis, Missouri -- A lesbian couple lost their lawsuit against a religious retirement home for denying them approval to purchase a home in the senior living facility.

St. Louis Public Radio reports that U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton ruled in favor of Sunset Hills retirement community this week because no illegal discrimination took place.

One observer who wished to remain anonymous out of fear for his or her safety told Brain Flushings' Vinny Boombots, "It's a good thing they tried this place onnaconna the one down the next town, an Islamic joint, they have a much different way of dealing with women who dig women, if you catch my drift."

"Mary Walsh and Beverly Nance took Friendship Village to federal court for sex discrimination in July, after the senior-living facility denied the same-sex couple’s housing application," reports SLPR. "Friendship Village cited its ‘Cohabitation Policy’ as the reason for the rejection. The policy defines marriage as between one man and one woman, as 'marriage is understood in the Bible.'" How utterly racist of them to follow their religious beliefs.

Representing the plaintiffs were the ACLU of Missouri and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which argued that Friendship Village discriminated against the couple on the basis of sex.

No, they discriminated on the basis of their biblical beliefs. I discriminate good beer from so-so beer based on whether it comes from the U.S. or Canada.

"Friendship Village’s denial of housing to Mary and Bev because they are two women, and not a man and a woman, is discrimination ‘because of sex’ in the most literal sense," said Arlene Zarembka, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "That Mary and Bev are lesbians doesn’t change this analysis." It just forces a lesbian life style on a community that sees it as a sin, and only wants to keep their community Christian.

The plaintiffs could not argue they were discriminated against due sexual orientation given that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against renters or homebuyers due to "race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." Judge Jean Hamilton wrote in a memorandum, "the Court finds the claims boil down to those of discrimination based on sexual orientation rather than sex alone."

The lesbian couple ought to try the retirement village over in the next town. It's the Sharia Arms and they would be happy to meet with them.

Neither the Fair Housing Act nor the Missouri Human Rights Act declares it illegal for a property owner to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

But even more, it goes beyond sexual orientation per se--it goes against their right to a religious belief that does not force their belief on others and asks that you don't force your beliefs on them.

Mary Walsh expressed disappointment with the court's decision. "We are disappointed by the court’s decision," Walsh said in a statement. "Bev and I are considering our next steps, and will discuss this with our attorneys."

Simply put, they know they can go elsewhere but they're looking to make a legal case out of this because that's what the LGBTQsilentP community does.

"We've been together for nearly 40 years and have spent our lives in St. Louis. We want to grow older here by each other's side. We should not be prevented from accessing the housing and care we need."

Nobody is preventing the loving couple from accessing housing. They simply have no right to access housing in a faith-based community that specifically has rules against it based on their beliefs.

Back in August, Walsh told the New York Times that she felt good about the community after meeting several of its residents whom she described as "very friendly." The couple put down a $2,000 security deposit after filling out the applications. Trouble started when the resident director inquired about the nature of Mary and Bev's relationship, as reported by The Blaze.

"We'd met other people from the community, and they were very friendly," Walsh said. "I was feeling good about it."

Of course they were friendly--they're probably decent Christians. But they may have been unaware of how you interact with each other, or even if they do know, the community rules make it very clear that you should not have applied to live there in the first place.

In a statement, attorney Julie Wilensky, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a center whose mission has been accomplished some years ago, said, "Mary and Bev were denied housing for one reason and one reason only — because they were married to each other rather than to men. This is exactly the type of sex discrimination the Fair Housing Act prohibits. Their story demonstrates the kind of exclusion and discrimination still facing same-sex couples of all ages."

No. They were considered by the community to be living in an unacceptable way for their community. If they were not engaged in lesbian sexual behavior the community wouldn't give a fig about the fact they weren't married to men. [Check out Little Sisters of the Poor.]

ACLU of Missouri Legal Director Tony Rothert also said, "Mary and Bev were financially and otherwise qualified for residency in the Friendship Village community. Their exclusion from this community is the result of discrimination alone."

On the other hand, can't a case be made to say that Mary and Bev purposely selected this community, not because they are religious  but because they aren't and instead have a point to make?

The question is, does the community have a right to their religious beliefs and freedom to express them?

Will 2019 be the year you follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint? Let's hope so, because politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.




Tweet