Masterpiece Cake Shop ruling shows the left how to proceed
As I explained yesterday on the show, the ruling by the Supreme Court on the Colorado baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding is not the legal victory a lot of conservatives and free speech advocates were hoping for.
You can see the blueprint being constructed by the leftist justices in how they explain why the Colorado Civil Rights Commission said one baker did NOT have to make an anti-gay cake, but another DID have to make a gay wedding cake.
From The Federalist:
In those cases, the commission had upheld the bakers’ right to refuse their services. Gorsuch notes that the commission clearly applied a double standard, effectively engaging in discrimination against Phillips because of the substance of his belief.
For the commissioners, who openly expressed their animus toward Phillips’s religious beliefs, there is no double standard because the secular beliefs of the other bakers are legitimate, while Phillips’ beliefs are not. Kagan’s footnote encapsulates the Left’s thinking on this issue—namely, that Phillips’s First Amendment claim amounts to nothing. Kagan writes:
As Justice Gorsuch sees it, the product that Phillips refused to sell here—and would refuse to sell to anyone—was a ‘cake celebrating same-sex marriage.’ But that is wrong. The cake requested was not a special ‘cake celebrating same-sex marriage.’ It was simply a wedding cake—one that (like other standard wedding cakes) is suitable for use at same-sex and opposite-sex weddings alike… And contrary to Justice Gorsuch’s view, a wedding cake does not become something different whenever a vendor like Phillips invests its sale to particular customers with ‘religious significance.’
In other words, Phillips’s religious beliefs about marriage—beliefs, by the way, which are orthodox teachings in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—are not to be taken seriously. Nor is the notion that a baker who is asked to make a specialty cake that celebrates what is, for the baker, a religious ceremony, might be engaging in protected speech by creating that cake, in much the same way a photographer or any other artist does.
For Kagan, the law may be construed to achieve a desired outcome, so long as those enforcing it don’t betray their animus toward certain religious beliefs.
NC Democrats come for (some of) your guns (for now)
From the News & Observer:
A trio of Democrats want North Carolina to follow California's footsteps in governing gun safety.
The "Ensure Safe Handguns" bill instructs the N.C. Department of Public Safety to prohibit the use of handguns that have design flaws endangering users. The bill instructs the department to use California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale as a model.
California has prohibited the sale of hundreds of handguns, affecting popular brands like Beretta, Colt and Smith & Wesson.
The department would conduct firing and other tests to determine which firearms are unsafe. Antiques, theater props and guns designed for use in the Olympic Games would be exempt from testing.
The first question I have is, "Why on earth would you exempt antiques from a law meant to protect people from misfires?" Doesn't it seem like antiques would be MORE problematic than brand new guns?
You can see the path being cleared by the American Left here.
Start compiling a list of guns that don't meet arbitrary specifications designed by people who want all guns banned. Then, expand that list of "unsafe guns" until it covers all handguns.
Daily Caller: Congresswoman tried to kill House hacking probe
So... this seems... strange...
Ex-Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she intervened in a Pakistani land deal involving her then–IT aide Imran Awan, according to two House employees. The dispute came after Awan’s father was charged with fraud in relation to the deal, and the mysterious exertion of political influence resulted in Pakistani authorities instead targeting the elderly alleged victims, according to a local report.
And when a House Office of Inspector General cybersecurity investigation found that Awan made “unauthorized access” to House servers, including the House Democratic Caucus’ shortly before the election, Wasserman Schultz became “frantic, not normal,” “making the rounds” to House officials in an attempt to kill the investigation, one House employee told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Judicial Watch has taken an interest, as well.
We deserve the Trump-Eagles fight
Most of the players on the Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles football team didn't want to go to the White House for the traditional photo op.
So, President Trump uninvited them.
So many lies smh— Torrey Smith (@TorreySmithWR) June 4, 2018
Here are some facts
1. Not many people were going to go
2. No one refused to go simply because Trump “insists” folks stand for the anthem
3. The President continues to spread the false narrative that players are anti military pic.twitter.com/89GUNhJ4eE
This can’t be serious.... Praying before games with my teammates, well before the anthem, is being used for your propaganda?! Just sad, I feel like you guys should have to be better than this... https://t.co/kYeyH2zXdK— Zach Ertz (@ZERTZ_86) June 5, 2018
So because none of the Eagles players actually knelt for the anthem, they decided to use footage of Eagles players kneeling to pray for their B Roll. Good work, Fox. https://t.co/6uTdhafmi4— neontaster (@neontaster) June 5, 2018
And another thing...
US Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) ... for the social media win today...