Saints ponder baker kick appeal
By Chris Haughan, The Times-Picayune, New Orleans
Saints owner Tom Benson said Tuesday he was considering asking a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling that said an outside bakery couldn’t refuse to make a cake for a gay couple because of state antidisc더킹카지노rimination laws.
Benson, the latest owner to weigh in, was asked about a request by the bakery that the city of New Orleans grant him the authority to sue the couple’s family restaurant in court to block the cake.
« I’m certainly thinking about it, » Benson said, noting he hadn’t decided whether to file.
« The bottom line is, if any of that바카라 was brought to me by the cake owner, I would probably have 바카라been able to stop it from going through, » he said. « That’s the law, and I think it would have passed. »
But the baker of the bakery that has been the target of a state lawsuit for refusing to serve same-sex couples in New Orleans declined comment Tuesday.
The owner of La Paz Baking Co., the owner of the French- and Italian-inspired restaurant that the Supreme Court said must now be forced to be open, said he was aware of the court case and thought « you could easily argue that this is a constitutional challenge to the cake. »
He declined to elaborate.
« That would be the last thing on my mind, really, » he said.
In a similar case in Massachusetts in 2005, a bakery owned by a same-sex couple sued the city of Worcester in federal court. The couple, then living in the state, sought to prohibit the business from selling wedding cakes to same-sex couples.
In a 4-3 Supreme Court decision in March 2005, the justices upheld the city’s ban on discrimination in public accommodations.
In the state case, the couple asked the court to overturn a district court ruling that had allowed their request to proceed. In a ruling issued June 4, the court said the city of Worcester and an outside business could continue to refuse service to gay men because such service violates the state law that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
But a different court upheld a lower court decision that said that the city had failed to make « substantive showing » that it would suffer irreparable harm from the law it prohibits because it didn’t have a « good-faith » belief that offering the service is motivated by a « sincerely held religious belief or practice.