'Intelligent' Jimmy Kimmel Proves His Stupidity By Getting A Gay Wedding Cake Ruling Completely Wrong

Jimmy ‘Will Hunting’ Kimmel likes to believe he’s “wicked smaht.” Recently he said late night talk show hosts tend to be liberal because it requires a “level of intelligence.” Of course, the media loves to parrot the nonsense he spouts on his show despite the fact it proves he’s not all that intelligent.

His most recent diatribe consisted of attacking the decision of a state judge in California who ruled the state could not force Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Miller said it was a violation of her religious beliefs. The judge agreed, ruling the design of a cake is a form of artistic expression, and therefore protected by the first amendment. In his ruling, Judge David Lampe wrote:

“The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the state’s interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace. A wedding cake is not just a cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct.”

Kimmel and his team of goofball writers attempted to rebut the ruling by creating a skit wherein Kimmel plays a waiter, declining the orders of gay and Jewish customers because doing so would violate his religious beliefs. Watch:

Oh how clever, right? Wrong. Mr. Intelligence (and again, his writers) naturally miss the entire point of the judges ruling. Ordering a salad (or any other meal) from a menu is not anywhere near the same as creating a custom item for a specific event. The judge in his ruling spelled that out for Mr. Smart Guy:

“The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is laudable and necessary public goal. No vendor may refuse to sell their public goods, or services (not fundamentally founded upon speech) based upon their perception of the gender identification of their customer, even upon religious grounds. A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same-sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire.”

The same goes for salad, Mr. Big Brains.

One might wonder whether or not Mr. Well-Informed Wonder purposely didn’t get the point of the judge’s ruling for the “benefit of the audience” or if he and his writers just aren’t smart as they believe themselves to be.