Rears disagree wh David Brooks’s argument that ligatn is not the bt way to promote gay marriage.
Contents:
- THE BAKER, THE GAY COUPLE AND THE WEDDG CAKE
- GAY COUPLE AT CENTER OF WEDDG CAKE DECISN SLAMS SUPREME COURT
- A GAY UPLE RAN A RAL RTRANT PEACE. THEN NEW NEIGHBORS ARRIVED.
THE BAKER, THE GAY COUPLE AND THE WEDDG CAKE
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lg agast two Oregon bakers who refed to bake a weddg ke for a lbian uple.The uple, Melissa and Aaron Kle, ced relig beliefs as their reason for not providg servic for a gay weddg. Durg the urt's last term, jtic led favor of a Colorado baker a siar suatn, statg that a state body monstrated improper hostily toward the baker's relign fdg that he vlated a state anti-discrimatn law.WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST FLORIST WHO REFUSED SERVICE FOR GAY COUPLE'S WEDDINGOn Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Kle se back down to a lower urt "for further nsiratn light of" their Colorado cisn.The central disput the se -- which ps LGBT rights agast relig eedom nsiratns -- have yet to be addrsed by the Supreme Court.A siar se volvg Washgton state florist Baronelle Stutzman prevly was sent back so the state urt uld review s cisn agast Stutzman light of the Colorado se. Kle then said the bakery do not make k for gay weddgs, urt documents said.Bowman-Cryer's mother, who was wh her, said Kle quoted the Bible when explag his cisn.The Kles had to pay a $135,000 judgment to the uple for discrimatg agast them vlatn of a state public acmodatns statute.
Kathryn Stt Osler/The Denver Post, via Getty ImagTo the Edor:Re “How Not to Advance Gay Marriage” (lumn, Dec. A baker, vlatn of Colorado’s anti-discrimatn law, ref to provi to a gay uple a service he provis to everyone else, and acrdg to Mr. (Bishop) GENE ROBINSONWASHINGTONThe wrer, the retired Epispal bishop of New Hampshire, was the first openly gay Epispal the Edor:I’m glad David Brooks remd that he fervently supports gay marriage.
And y, “the ti of opn is quickly swgg favor of gay marriage. Colorado Civil Rights Commissn, the Supreme Court se about a baker who refed to make a weddg ke for a gay uple, rais important qutns about public acmodatn, ee speech and relig David Brooks nigrat the importance of the se, sayg “’s jt a ke” rather somethg of mer, like a hoe or a job — which is not the pot. Muny should be neighborly and patient the face of digni thrown at by evangelils bee, among other reasons, “the ti of opn is quickly swgg favor of gay marriage.
GAY COUPLE AT CENTER OF WEDDG CAKE DECISN SLAMS SUPREME COURT
” But such tis n turn on a dime, as I have wnsed my own I me out 1979-80, the future was lookg bright for the gay muny. Dozens of ci across the untry had enacted ordanc that protected lbian and gay people om discrimatn.
A GAY UPLE RAN A RAL RTRANT PEACE. THEN NEW NEIGHBORS ARRIVED.
One by one, ci repealed those anti-discrimatn ordanc, and lbians and gay men certa fields, like teachg, began to lose their jobs. Brooks really thk for a mute that Jack Phillips would have e to dner at the home of a gay uple, and then been drawn like a fly to honey to bake their weddg ke? Brooks’s fantasy were to have e to un, what about all the other gay upl around the untry who would ntue to be nied their ke?
Brooks, but when you say that you “fervently support gay marriage” but oppose this lawsu, my rponse is: You n’t have your ke and eat , MAGID HARTMINNEAPOLISTo the Edor:Re “A Baker’s First Amendment Rights, ” by Robert P. A versn of this article appears prt on, Sectn SR, Page 8 of the New York edn wh the headle: A Baker’s Rebuff of a Gay Couple.