Posted by:
elderolddog
(
)
Date: February 06, 2018 07:21PM
Well, superior court judges are little ghawds in their courtrooms, and when they have an axe to grind, there's no one can stop them.
Here's are two excerpts from a service that "grades" jurists:
http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=2456Litigant
Comment #: CA10342
Rating:1.0
Comments:
170.6 Immediately if you get the chance. So biased, ignorant, rude, and impatient. Rumor is that he has a chip on his shoulder because he's not smart enough to be on the appellate panel. Has relationship with certain "local counsels" that will severely handicap you if you aren't one of them. Go for the other two judges if you can, Chapin or Clark, and you will much more fair hearing or trial.
View Detail Send e-mail to this poster 11/29/2016 5:51:42 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
Comment #: CA2889
Rating:2.1
Comments:
This guy is a FOOL with a capital F.
View Detail Send e-mail to this poster 10/15/2012 11:00:27 AM
This article has a photo of the judge, and some more details:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/02/06/california-judge-rules-christian-bakery-shouldnt-forced-make-gay-wedding-cake-598921Here's what I think is the keystone to the judge's position:
“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”
So imagine the baker is a doctor, or an attorney, or any of a myrid of practitioners who carry their talent in their brains... Can they refuse, on the grounds of religious belief, not to use their talent on behalf of a client/customer whose existence violates a religious tenet?
"...that cake hadn't been baked yet..." The defendant was purposely hurting the plaintiffs based on a religious stand. The fact that the cake wasa available elsewhere is akin to "use another drinking fountain; this one is for _____"
The plaintiff attorney implied they'll be appealing...
I am indignant! Alert The Times! The London Times, not that upstart rag in NYC!