US Supreme Court sides with Christian bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple - the second time its thrown out a discrimination case against a bakery in the past 12 months

The Supreme Court decided on Monday against a high-stakes, election-year case about the competing rights of gay and lesbian couples and merchants who refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings.

The justices handed the former owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in the Portland, Oregon, area a small victory by throwing out a state court ruling against them and ordering judges to take a new look at their refusal to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

The high court's brief order directs appellate judges in Oregon to consider last term's Supreme Court ruling in favor of a baker from Colorado who would not make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The court ruled that baker Jack Phillips was subjected to anti-religious bias in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's determination that he violated state anti-discrimination in refusing to bake the couple's wedding cake, though Phillips has been sued again.

The Oregon appellate ruling came before the court's decision in Phillips' case out of Colorado.

The Oregon case had been in Supreme Court limbo for months, sometimes signaling behind-the-scenes negotiation over what to do. There were no noted dissents or other explanation for the delay in Monday's order.

The case involves bakers Melissa and Aaron Klein, who paid a $135,000 judgment to Rachel Bowman-Cryer and her significant other for declining to create a cake for them in 2013.

The Kleins' bakery was located in Gresham, Oregon but has since closed.

The dispute began when Bowman-Cryer went to the bakery with her mother in January 2013. They met with Aaron Klein, who asked for the date of the ceremony and the names of the bride and groom.

When told there was no groom, Aaron said he was sorry but the bakery did not make cakes for same-sex weddings. According to documents from the case, Bowman-Cryer and her mother left the shop, but returned a short time later. As the daughter remained in the car, in tears, her mother went in to speak with Aaron.

The mother told Aaron she had once thought like him, but her 'truth had changed' when she had two gay children. Aaron responded by quoting Leviticus: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.'

The appellate court upheld the judgment against the Kleins, and on Monday the Supreme Court threw that ruling out.

Of significant importance related to the order is that it keeps the case off the docket for a term that will end in June 2020 amid the presidential election campaign.

The justices already have agreed to decide in their election-year session whether federal civil rights law protects people from job discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The larger issue weighing the rights of LGBT people against the religious objections of merchants remains unresolved.

Another dispute involving a florist from Washington state who would not create flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding is headed back to the Supreme Court.

The high court took the same tack last year in the florist's case. Taking a second look at the case, the Washington Supreme Court concluded earlier in June that there was no animosity toward religion in court rulings that florist Barronelle Stutzman broke the state's anti-discrimination laws by refusing on religious grounds to provide flowers for the wedding of a gay couple.

Stutzman owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington.

The justices could consider Stutzman's appeal in the fall.

Meanwhile, Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, has had another lawsuit brought against him.

Transgender woman Autumn Scardina filed a court documents earlier this month accusing him of refusing to make her gender transition cake.

It comes after the Supreme Court ruled in the baker's favor last year after he was sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The justices' decision turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against Phillips.

The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

The same-sex couple at the heart of the case, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, complained to the Colorado commission in 2012 after they visited Phillips' bakery in suburban Denver and the baker quickly told them he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration.

They were married in Massachusetts because same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado.

Scardina, the transgender woman who filed the recent lawsuit against the baker, placed the order for a cake celebrating her gender transition on the day the Supreme Court handed down its decision.

She filed a lawsuit after that order was declined but the suit was dismissed.

The lawsuit she filed in early June is her second attempt at suing Phillips for what she says is discrimination and unfair trade practices.

'Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake,' her attorney Paula Griesen said.

'We don't believe they've been honest with the public.'

The lawsuit filed by Scardina claims that Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop had confirmed they would happily make the exact same cake requested by her for other customers.

Phillips' attorneys issued a statement after the lawsuit was filed, saying it rehashed old claims.

'A new lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop that appears to largely rehash old claims. The State of Colorado abandoned similar ones just a few months ago.

'So this latest attack by Scardina looks like yet another desperate attempt to harass cake artist Jack Phillips. And it stumbles over the one detail that matters most: Jack serves everyone; he just cannot express all messages through his custom cakes.'

SOURCE  






Woman, 19, who claims it's her DUTY to make her husband's dinner every night, wash his clothes and make sure he gets up for work on time is slammed for 'acting like his mother'

A woman who says she was raised to 'take care' of her husband has received backlash for her comments online. 

In the post which she uploaded to her Twitter page, Brylea Langley, from Texas, penned: 'I was raised to take care of my husband make his plate every night, wash his work clothes for him, make sure he’s up for work the next morning, always have a clean house for him to come home to, etc. and that’s exactly wife I will be.'

And while few agreed with the college student's controversial opinion, others slammed her comments for being 'old-fashioned.'

'Sounds like you were raised to be his mom,' wrote one, while another penned: 'Sooooo do you get to pursue any hobbies or passions or is your full time job being a mother to a fully grown adult man?' 

Meanwhile, others suggested that chores such as doing the dishes and cleaning the house should be split equally - with one warning, 'know your worth.'

'I'm a stay at home mom and my husband doesn't treat me like we're in the fifties,' wrote one. 'He knows he's a grown man who can depend on himself if I do not cook or clean on some days. He doesn't make demands. Ladies know your worth...'

A further explained: 'I’ve been married 30 years. Marriage is a partnership, with give and take and mutual respect for each other, not one person catering to the other. Think about the model you’re setting for your daughters.'

However, not everyone was quite as outraged by Brylea's comment - and instead spoke out in support of her. 

'It's your choice to be the kind of wife and woman you want to be,' encouraged one, while another said: 'Pretty sure @BryleaLangley is my soul twin.' 'I've never heard of another female (close to my age) that believes the same way I do on what "wifey material" really is.'

Another added: 'I thought feminism was about letting women have the power to choose? As far as I can tell this lady isn't trying to push her agenda on anyone. It's just her own values affecting her own life,' while a fourth commented: 'This is the realist response. Everybody's situation is different.' 

SOURCE  






These men say the Boy Scouts’ pedophile problem is worse than anyone knew. They’re speaking out for the first time

Attorneys say they’ve collected information recently from more than 500 men and boys whose accounts of rape, molestation and abuse indicate the Boy Scouts’ pedophile problem is far more widespread than the organization has previously acknowledged.

These men are speaking out for the first time, and several of them detailed their allegations of abuse in interviews with TIME. (TIME was not able to confirm the men’s specific accounts but spoke with others who said they’d been told of the incidents. TIME also obtained a police report filed by one of the individuals alleging abuse.)

The men hope to illuminate a problem that has plagued but never fully exposed the Boy Scouts, an institution that for 109 years has vowed to teach youngsters good manners, useful skills, and a sense of right and wrong. For generations of men, the Boy Scouts have been central to their identity as good citizens. Presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush have touted their scouting credentials as proof of a virtuous grounding.

Lawyers for the ex-scouts, though, paint a picture of an organization that has failed not only those who were abused, but the entire country: the Boy Scouts of America is a federally chartered nonprofit that must provide annual reports to Congress, and attorneys for the former scouts say the organization did not include information about abuse accusations in those records. “They were reporting... that they were a wholesome organization,” says Tim Kosnoff, one of the attorneys, “when they were kicking out child molesters at the rate of one every two days for 100 years.”

In a statement to TIME, the Boy Scouts denied withholding any relevant information from Congress or enabling abusers. “For decades, the BSA has provided Congress with a yearly report that meets the requirements of our charter.” But separately, the Scouts’ chief executive, Michael B. Surbaugh, has acknowledged that the organization “did, in at least some instances, allow individuals to return to scouting even after credible accusations of sexual abuse.” “I am devastated that this ever occurred,” Surbaugh added in a May 28 letter to lawmakers looking into the Boy Scouts’ handling of abuse claims.

Former scouts have brought hundreds of individual sex-abuse cases against the Boy Scouts over the past several decades, and in 2010, a judge ordered the organization to make public an internal list of men accused of preying on boys. Within Scouts head quarters, the list was known as the P Files or Perversion Files. In January, a sex-crimes expert hired by the Boy Scouts to analyze these files testified that she found 12,254 boys had reported experiencing sexual abuse at the hands of at least 7,800 suspected assailants between 1944 and 2016. Academics who research child sex abuse tell TIME that number is a gross underestimation. Many boys were likely intimidated or shamed out of reporting their assailants, who often held influential positions in local churches, schools or businesses.

The cascading claims of misconduct invite comparison to the Catholic Church’s sex-abuse scandal. In both cases, institutions entrusted with the care of boys responded by protecting themselves instead of the victims of abuse. The Catholic Church faced more than 10,000 accusations of child abuse in the U.S. between 1950 and 2002, according to one report.

In fact, many of the former scouts who have waited decades to come forward say they were inspired by other victims who spoke out about long-ago abuse both in the church and in the entertainment, media and sports industries and saw their perpetrators toppled from powerful positions and, in some cases, prosecuted. Those testimonies have also spurred several states to extend the statute of limitations on sex-abuse cases, opening the door to more legal claims. The Boy Scouts quietly hired lobbyists to push against such laws for fear of facing an onslaught of criminal cases.

Kosnoff, who has brought more than 100 cases against the Boy Scouts since 2007, calls the Boy Scouts’ behavior a century-long cover-up. Indeed, so many individuals have sued the organization alleging harassment, molestation and rape that insurers have refused to pay out settlements, arguing in court filings last year that the Boy Scouts could have reasonably prevented the abuse. Kosnoff had retired to Puerto Rico when he learned that the Boy Scouts were considering bankruptcy—a tactic some Catholic dioceses have used to stall lawsuits against them. Outraged, the lawyer recruited attorneys from two other law firms to launch a national ad campaign in March to draw clients. Their goal is to lay the groundwork for possible legal action even if the Boy Scouts file for bankruptcy and a judge sets a deadline for new claims to be filed.

“We’re struggling to keep up with the response,” says Kosnoff. The legal team says the men who have come forward so far have named more than 300 “hidden predators” who did not appear in the Perversion Files. TIME is not publishing their names because a suit identifying them has not been filed. However, Kosnoff would like to push the Boy Scouts to list the names of the men his clients have accused in a public database. Based on his experience representing church abuse victims, Kosnoff worries that bankruptcy proceedings could bury the names of potential assailants: “The assailants who would otherwise be identified in lawsuits get enshrouded in darkness, and these predators can continue to operate.”

At its 1972 peak, membership in the Boy Scouts numbered more than 6 million. Families across the country were eager to enroll their sons in the organization that touted mentorship from older men and bonding activities with other boys, including camping trips.

SOURCE  






You’ll Be Shocked to Learn That Book Claiming ‘Married Women Are Less Happy’ is Total Bull***t

“Happiness expert” Paul Dolan’s claim that married women admit to being less happy than unmarried women when their spouse is out of the room was based off a misreading of the data, adjunct professor Gray Kimbrough has revealed.

From Vox:

“Married people are happier than other population subgroups, but only when their spouse is in the room when they’re asked how happy they are. When the spouse is not present: f***ing miserable,” Dolan said, citing the American Time Use Survey, a national survey available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and used for academic research on how Americans live their lives.

The problem? That finding is the result of a grievous misunderstanding on Dolan’s part of how the American Time Use Survey works. The people conducting the survey didn’t ask married people how happy they were, shoo their spouses out of the room, and then ask again. Dolan had misinterpreted one of the categories in the survey, “spouse absent,” which refers to married people whose partner is no longer living in their household, as meaning the spouse stepped out of the room.

The error was caught by Gray Kimbrough, an economist at American University’s School of Public Affairs, who uses the survey data — and realized that Dolan must have gotten it wrong. “I’ve done a lot with time-use data,” Kimbrough told me. “It’s a phone survey.” The survey didn’t even ask if a respondent’s spouse was in the room.

Dolan confirmed to me by email, “We did indeed misinterpret the variable. Some surveys do code whether people are present for the interview but in this instance it refers to present in the household. I have contacted the Guardian who have amended the piece and my editor so that we can make the requisite changes to the book. The substance of my argument that marriage is generally better for men than for women remains.”

Kimbrough disputes that, too, arguing that Dolan’s other claims also “fall apart with a cursory look at the evidence,” as he told me.

Imagine my shock.

SOURCE  

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************