Persecution in America

Another LGBT wedding-cake trial scheduled? Will they ever stop or is this just the beginning?

April 30, 2019

A wedding cake is a marriage between cake dough and icing. Since LGBT couples do not find the opposite sex attractive, the celebration of their union using a wedding cake is an insult to the LGBT movement. A wedding cake is a union between the opposites (icing + cake dough = wedding cake) a symbol of (female + male = marriage). Thus to be true to their LGBT agenda, these couples should celebrate their unions with one of the ingredients, lesbians exclusively using icing, and gays using cake dough. Therefore LGBT couples do not have use for Christian bakeries specializing in wedding cakes because these cakes represent traditional marriages.

A California court has set a trial date in a case brought by two lesbians against a cake baker whose claims the women were searching for a lawsuit, not a wedding cake, when they came to her shop.

Superior Court Judge David Lampe on Monday scheduled Christian baker Cathy Miller’s trial for June 22.

The state Department for Fair Employment & Housing sued Miller in October 2018 on behalf of the same-sex couple.

It is the second lawsuit by the state regarding the incident. The previous case ended when a judge declared Miller’s actions were protected by the First Amendment. The state refused to appeal, and, despite the judge’s conclusion, filed a second lawsuit.

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, representing Miller, filed a brief making the same First Amendment argument but also asserts the same-sex couple “fraudulently” presented themselves as customers to provoke a lawsuit and, therefore, were “unlawful trespassers.”

Miller’s lawyers contend the couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rios, “conspired with one another and/or aided and abetted one another in bringing what they know is a fraudulent and meritless complaint to … collect a money judgment.”

They participated in a “blatant abuse of process” in bringing the complaint, FCDF said, with the goal of cashing in financially as well as harming Miller and her Tastries Bakery.

Additionally, the claims are “barred because the Rodriguez-Del Rios gained access to Tastries Bakery based on their fraudulent intent to trigger this meritless lawsuit.”

“Motivated by ulterior objectives, they knowingly and fraudulently presented themselves as potential Tastries customers willing to abide by Miller and Tastries’ policies and reasonable requests. … Consequently, the Rodriguez-Del Rios were unlawful trespassers.”

The brief also argues the state’s claims are meritless because Miller and her bakery “were fully justified in lawfully exercising their free speech and free exercise rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitutions.”

Read full article