Jack Phillip, the Colorado baker who brought the challenge in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has again lost an appeal in Colorado state court. After the Supreme Court effectively punted on the issue of his free speech and free exercise challenges to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), which protects against the denial of service in a place of public accommodation based on one’s identity. After the 2018 decision, Phillip faced additional demands including the creation of a gender transitioning cake. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the refusal to make the cake requested by Autumn Scardina did not constitute free speech.
I have a forthcoming law review article on free speech protections for the speech involved in this and similar cases around the country: “The Unfinished Masterpiece: Speech Compulsion and the Evolving Jurisprudence over Religious Speech” (forthcoming 2023).
Many years ago, I wrote an academic piece on how anti-discrimination laws would inevitably collide with free-speech and free-exercise rights. Those conflicts continued to mount across the country. In 2018, the court was thought to be ready to clarify the applicable standards in the case of a religious cake shop owner who refused to make cakes for same-sex couples. The court ultimately punted in Masterpiece Cakeshop, leaving uncertainty over the constitutional limitations on cities and states under anti-discrimination law.
Smith’s case has long been a focus for some of us. I have written in favor of taking a free-speech approach to these cases rather than treating them as conflicts under the Constitution’s religion clauses. For that reason, one aspect of this grant of review was immediately notable. The court agreed to consider only one question: “Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
For Phillips, he has spent over a decade in state and federal courts. In the latest decision, the appellate court found that the creation of the cake can be “inherently expressive and therefore entitled to First Amendment protection.” However, the court still denied free speech protections by dismissing the notion that this particular cake was expressive:
“We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to 39 an observer would not be attributed to the baker. Thus, CADA does not compel Masterpiece and Phillips to speak through the creation and sale of such a cake to Scardina.”
The court used the same rationale of the cakes design to deny Phillips religious claims:
“We also reject Masterpiece and Phillips’ argument that the statute punishes them for exercising their religious beliefs because CADA is “applie[d] through the Commission’s purported use of an ‘offensiveness rule.’” For the reasons previously articulated, even if we were to assume such a standard exists, the trial court’s ruling in this case was not predicated on the perceived “offensiveness” of the message, but rather on the fact that the pink and blue cake expressed no message, whether secular or religious.”
Fortunately, 303 Creative has the makings of a major free speech victory. The case involves a challenge of a web designer who was not only told that she must prepare websites for same-sex marriages despite her religious objections but that she cannot post a statement on her own website on her views of same-sex marriage. For free speech advocates, it is a nightmarish combination of compelled speech and censored speech.
With this denial of his constitutional rights, Phillips moves closer to a new appeal to the Supreme Court, which left him to years of additional litigation by effectively punting his case in 2018.
Here is the decision: Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., No. 2023COA8 (Colo. App. Ct. Jan. 26, 2023), https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2023/21CA1142-PD.pdf.
Durham Probe Comes To Nothing
Ready To Wrap After 4 Years
Here the NYT notes that throughout the years, rightwing media kept hinting that Durham was about to lower the boom on Hillary. But the entire investigation was a maze of blind alleys.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html
Can you say the Warren Commission, James Kallstrom, FBI, Flight 800, Robert Mueller, Thomas F. Kranz, Special Counsel, Los Angeles County District Attorney, RFK Assassination, and Los Angeles District Attorney John Van de Kamp, Marilyn Monroe murder by RFK?
George, Robert Mueller’s prode produced far more than Durham’s.
Mueller produced nothing.
Durham proved Mueller did nothing
iowan2 – Mueller did accomplish something. After a 22 month investigatin, with the rabidly anti-Trump assistant, Andrew Weismann, as one of his leads, his report showed that there was no evidence of any collusion b/n Trump and Putin. A three year hoax exposed.
In your dreams.
Mueller failed to report that the whole XFR investigation AND HIS OWN were rooted in a HOAX.
Mueller failed to find Collusion between Russian and the FBI that was going on during his investigation.
Every single thing Durham found – was within the domain of Muellers investigation – and yet Mueller missed it.
Finally Mueller failed to find the OBVIOUS
That hsi own investigation was without foundation.
Before or shortly after starting Mueller KNEW or shoulc have known that the XFR investigation – and therefore his own,
rested on several HOAX’s.
At that point constitutionally HE WAS DONE.
Yet, he continued.
The MOMENT he found that the steele dossier was a HOAX, and the Alpha Bank claim was a HOAX – the Mueller investigation should have been over.
Our govenrment can not conduct criminal investigations of US persons without proable cause that a crime has been committed.
Durham EXPOSED what the FBI/DOJ and Mueller already knew – which was that they NEVER had probable cause.
And that means no investigation.
Muellers report should have been ONE sentence long.
The Steele Dossier and Alpha bank claim are HOAX’s, therefore there is nothing further that can be constitutionally investigated.
Will say this again, and I do indeed believe it is important to a present conversation, BUT: you all do not seem to understand, with your arguing of current law that that will likely all be rendered inert with future generations, and future proceedings, and in the meantime rendered inert by the powers that be. What are you prepared to do now to circumvent that? And – ahem – it actually begins with children in the high chair. The rest of this conversation is, regarding that point, moot. Every person of every persuasion seems to be whistling in the dark in 2023. The ANTIFA minded are the exception today; generationally they may be the rule tomorrow, and we had better think about that as it applies to our society from top to bottom starting right. Now. Media to retail. I sure hope the regulars here do more than post comments on Jonathan Turley’s blog, because we are about to face an indoctrinated, younger population the West has not seen since its inception.
What’s likely going to happen very soon in bigoted small towns, regardless of the court ruling:
Amazon, Walmart or Costco will come in and make the wedding cakes, putting the small cake shop owners out of business.
As a fellow small business owner myself, you serve customers or go out of business! Your bigotry is inviting these big companies into your market.
The Colorado Anti Discrimination Law is discriminatory.
OT (slightly) – In Kim Iversen’s broadcast yesterday, she and Tara Reade discussed how Time’s Up, a group formed allegedly to assist women who claim sexual harassment, and which was supported by Hollywood A-Listers, actually operated to supress sexual harassment claims against Democrats. In fact, the leaders of the group were Democrats like Anita Dunn, who is now an advisor in the Biden administration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3LTCdp8z_o
So make a really crappy cake. That allows for expression of the cake makers opinion and there is no refusal to serve.
I think that if you are seriously offended by anything whatsoever in this particular case, you should probably just call it quits. I take pride in baking my own cakes. Perhaps the nanny state needs to be addressed here because the people in question are incapable of doing even that simple thing. For f***’s sake, bake your own cake. Find the imagination that privilege and Instagram squelched to death and do something, anything, yourself, on your own behalf, just you. This is a symptom of things I do not, myself, have been properly addressed. Social media brain, millennial narcissism/entitlement (and in some cases this includes the 50-60 something parents) – these are real, and we had better get used to smacking them down, because these folks will be around a while. If we want control of our lives we had better start taking control of our children.
The Satanic Temple is now suing cake bakers for refusing to bake cakes that celebrate satan.
The Constitution protects freedom of religion, so the satanists, most of whom are really atheist humanists, are free to worship how they choose. BUT, the bakers also have free speech. They must sell generic or ready made confections to the Satanic Temple, but they mustn’t be forced to decorate them hailing satan, or else it is compelled speech, as well as interferes with their freedom of religion. If someone believes they might lose their soul if they write such words on a cake, or use satanic imagery, then no court is going to be able to force them to do it.
https://abc7ny.com/the-satanic-temple-lgbtq-discrimination-jack-phillips/2464189/
Slippery slope.
A word of advice to these activists. It is unwise to eat anything you had to force a baker to make against his or her will. It is unwise to trust your wedding photography to a photographer you had to threaten with ruination to be there.
The satanic temple is a government recognized religion. Can’t discriminate based on the fact that they are a religion. Just as a baker can’t discriminate a Muslim customer because they are Muslim. The constitution protects them from discrimination just as any other religion.
. Just as a baker can’t discriminate a Muslim customer because they are Muslim
But a Muslim baker is OK to discriminate against homosexual customers
There is a huge market out there for particular types of cake making. If your gay and you can bake a cake you could make a fortune baking cakes for all of your LGBTQ+++++ friends. If you opened such a business would you bake a cake for someone that says that homosexuality is a sin? As to Jesus loving prostitutes and homosexuals of course he did. He died for them too. He did love the outcasts but he also told them to repent. What shall we say then. Shall we go on sinning so that his grace will increase. You may not like what he said but twisting his words in such a way to say that he approved of their actions because he loves them is only a self serving exercise in an effort to justify your thoughts on the matter. It takes a lot of manipulation to put words in Jesus’s mouth try as you might.
If your gay and you can bake a cake you could make a fortune baking cakes for all of your LGBTQ+++++ friends.
I’m not starting a business that is only 2% of the population. and of those only small percentage of the 2% have any intention of getting married.
A pink cake with blue frosting is, actually, inherently expressive because the client expressly said it was for changing gender. Pink as feminine and blue as masculine is symbolic. Pink balloons means a newborn is a girl, and blue means boy.
While it’s perfectly acceptable for any gender to wear these colors, when a cake celebrates a sex change, then the mind immediately goes to the symbolism of the colors.
Tell someone that a girl wants a cake with pink and blue colors, because those are her favorites, and the cake is just pretty.
Tell someone that a pink cake with blue frosting celebrates a sex change, and it becomes immediately apparent that the person “looks” like a boy on the outside, complete with genitalia, but is “really” a girl on the inside, communicated through the symbology of color.
Karen S,
A pink and blue cake is only “expressive” if the baker knows what it’s for. His religious beliefs are an issue only when he knows what the cake is for. What if he was never told what the occasion was? The only reason he refused is because he was told what the cake would be for. If the custom just said I want a pink and blue cake without offering or providing the occasion how would his religious beliefs be violated? One way to avoid this problem would be to just not say what the cake is for. In reality you don’t have to tell the baker anything about the purpose for the cake. Just that it has to be a certain design or color.
It’s also an issue that people are well awareness of who this baker is and they are deliberately asking for these cakes to test hos ability or willingness to comply with the law. It’s clear he is being a bigot due to his religious beliefs. He chose to do business where he would encounter these kinds of situations. There is no separate set of rules for religious believers and secularists. Religious folks take on the added risk of having their religious sensitivities tested. The same excuses were once used to deny services to interracial couples. Religion is often used to shield bigotry.
Jesus often chastised his own followers more often than those who did not follow him. He told his own followers to treat everyone like they would treat him. The baker wouldn’t treat Jesus like he’s treated these customers. Can you picture Jesus refusing to bake a cake because of who the custom is?
Svezlaz – I thought he was a carpenter.
Svelaz:
The customer could certainly have tried to trick the baker into baking what he thought was a generic cake.
The occasion meant the cake was symbolic. As I stated, the symbolism of the colors is readily apparent when taken in context of the occasion. That DOES make it compelled speech. The activists took great pains to inform the baker that the cake was to celebrate a sex change, with blue to symbolism male, and pink to symbolize female. The baker said no.
Why do you think the activist have not targeted any Muslim owners of bakeries? I have seen video where people asked them to bake cakes like this, and were emphatically told no. Why do you think the Satanic Temple targets Christian, rather than Muslim, bakery owners?
Are you saying that Jesus would think chemically and surgically castrating boys too young to buy alcohol, vote, or make other big decisions is a great idea? Are you saying that Jesus would want to force bakers to celebrate the Satanic Temple? That dog won’t hunt. Compassion and celebration are very different.
“The customer could certainly have tried to trick the baker into baking what he thought was a generic cake.”
No tricking necessary. The customer doesn’t have to tell the baker what the cake is for. It absolves him of any guilt if he is clueless about the purpose of the cake.
“Why do you think the activist have not targeted any Muslim owners of bakeries?”
How do you know a bakery is Muslim? The baker in this case made it known only when faced with a dilemma that is part of his choice of business.
The customer wanted the baker to refuse his or her request.
But Scardina did tell him that was what it was for. It was also Scardina’s second cake request, the first being expressly for a gender transition reveal cake, which he refused, and Colorado refused to prosecute. Scardina kept trying to nail Phillips, with this second railroad attempt. Those who come before a court of equity must come with clean hands.
Svelaz:
The activists trying their best to make Phillip poor because he will not actively celebrate their lifestyle are anti-Christian bigots.
This, but it is only the surface. The requester (Scardina) requested that Jack Phillips create a gender transition cake, which he refused. She (Scardina) filed a complaint with Colorado. Colorado dropped the complaint when challenged. Apparently unsatisfied, Scardina went to the bakery again, this time requesting the pink and purple cake. When she told Phillips it was for a gender transition reveal, he refused to make the cake, and she sued.
This was a pure set up. There are a number of reasons to disagree with Scardina’s attempt to force speech contrary to Jack’s beliefs, including those raised by JT. Among others, we have what are labeled “moral rights” with respect to expressive creations, among which is the right not to have any “or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.” The US is a signatory to the Berne Convention, moral rights are recognized in the US. If the bakery had produced the cake, nothing stopped the requester, who had stated that the purpose of the cake was a gender transition reveal, from bragging that the cake was made by Jack, associating him with the gender transition reveal, which would be prejudicial to what he saw as his reputation.
The only way Colorado could force its will on Jack Phillips was to declare the cake “non-expressive”, even though the plaintiff, Scardina, had already argued that it WAS expressive. Boy is this case ripe for appeal.
Optimistic:
You make a great point that the argument is essentially that the cake is expressive, and non expressive, at the same time, like Schrodinger’s cat.
And maybe Phillip should take his cue from Schrodinger and hand Scardina a cake box. When Scardina opens the box she complains there is no cake there. Phillip takes the box, looks inside and says ‘you’re crazy, the cake you asked for is in the box’ and demands payment for his ‘Schrodinger’ cake.
LGBTQ+ blew way past tolerance and went on a search and destroy mission against anyone who does not choose to actively participate in supporting their lifestyle.
Jack Phillip has no problem with gays, lesbians, and transgender existing, converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. He has no problem selling them any ready made confection in his shop. What he does not choose to do is actively participate in celebrating gay weddings, or men declaring that they can decide to be women. This makes gender a choice or internal identity instead of biological.
Instead of these activists tolerating that out of 325 million Americans, some of them are not going to celebrate their lifestyle and wish to participate in their events, they search out small businesses to destroy. Small business owners aren’t rich. They typically have a small profit margin, work long hours, and often pay employees before themselves. LGBTQ+ activists are trying to impoverish these small business owners, ruining their lives as punishment because they don’t want to bake a cake for them. That’s entitlement and revenge on the level of Nero.
This would be like forcing a Democrat artist to paint a flattering portrait of Trump. Porn is legal in the US. Shall little old lady bakers be forced to create a cake celebrating Misty’s 50th orgy on film? Or how about baking a cake for Robert’s 12th “spiritual wife”, who’s 16 and given with her parent’s consent? It’s not a legal marriage so technically not bigamy, and a 16 year old can marry with parental permission. Is it a beautiful thing to force a sobbing baker to create a wedding cake for that girl, just because the act is legal? Is that a free country?
Compelled speech is the antithesis of free speech. Comparing forcing a baker or photographer to celebrate a man getting castrated with Jim Crow is illogical, because these activists can buy anything ready made. A custom product is a work of art. If you doubt this, then go take an advanced cake decorating class, and sweat over perfecting fondant, icing roses, and sculptures in chocolate. It is art. Art is a form of expression, which is speech.
Tolerance goes both ways.
I clearly remember telling my parents that expanding marriage to gay couples would not in any way affect them. It’s two consenting adults, whose private lives are their own. Why not remove obstacles to their happiness? Well, I was wrong. Unfortunately, tolerance did not appease activists. They now demand celebration and participation, on pain of financial and social destruction. It’s savage.
Karen S.
Well said.
I think the problem with all of this is the woke Leftists are not the live and let live, have respect for others beliefs.
They want, no, demand everyone else to prove outright support. And if you dont, your bad!
My gay friends and family members think this militant wokeism is insane. So they are attracted to, and or are partners with same sex individuals . . . and? What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, the governments business, or any religious groups business as long as they are not harming the other in some way, causing harm to children, or animals.
I can support my gay friends and family members and their chosen lifestyle without having to fly a pride flag outside my home, bumper sticker on my truck, or some other virtual signaling.
Interested in others views on this. Should the cake shop owner bake a cake for Jerry Falwell, Jr and his wife Becky? This is based on the documentary “God Forbid” that came out around 2022. If we are debating the First Amendment speech and religious clauses, this should be part of the debate.
Summarize: Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife had a fully consensual marriage with highly publicized encounter with pool boy.
Personally, I’m not condemning Falwell and see no moral issues with it. The only moral issue I see are those doing what Falwell did then passing judgement on others doing the same thing.
Equal marriage rights for LGBT couples wouldn’t violate the Bible’s “Sodom & Gomorrah” prohibitions (excessive hedonism), since all marriages are the opposite of those prohibitions. Marriages are stable longterm relationships. Jesus himself never denounced homosexuals (according to Christian experts Jimmy Carter and Ted Olson of the George W. Bush administration).
Ashcroft:
It’s virtually impossible not to pass judgement. Those who sued Philip, or voice an opinion for or against, are passing judgement. Having an opinion on any activity or behavior is a form of judgement. If you never watch the Kardashians, you’ve passed judgement on their lifestyle.
Everyone makes mistakes. We all live in glass houses. However, the difference here is that activists do not seek tolerance, but rather active participation. A baker MUST not only feel compassion for someone who got castrated to change genders, but also bake a cake celebrating it as a wonderful idea. Selling these activists generic or ready made items does not satisfy them. They demand active participation, or else threaten the ruination of their livelihood. That’s like an entitled emperor impoverishing those who displeased him.
It takes an astonishing level of entitlement, and corresponding lack of compassion and tolerance, to try to make someone poor because they do not agree to actively participate in a celebration of your lifestyle, and offered you a generic item instead.
Better re-read the Old Testament if you think God (Jesus) didn’t condemn homosexual activity. When Jesus said to the Pharisees ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ he was declaring to them that he, in fact, is the God of the Old testament who spoke to Moses from the burning bush. Which is why they tried to stone him after he made that statement. Everything attributed to the ‘God of the Old Testament’ is actually referring to Jesus. All interactions between God and the world are through Jesus. And John reaffirms this when he says ‘all that was created was created by him’.
I am curious why the court didn’t apply the test to see if he would sell a cake to a transsexual in general.
Or sell a birthday cake.
That would be the test.
If he refused service in general… he would be guilty of violating the law.
But here you have someone who is not in a protected class trying to enforce their 1st Amendment rights against someone in a protected class who is trying to impose a complied speech.
Just something to think about.
-G
I wonder what mental gymnastics our morally enlightened and superior s@@tlib friends would engage to justify a Muslim bakery not having to bake a Mohammed cartoon cake?
Maybe one of them can help us on this one?
What do I know, I’m a deplorable.
antonio
@Antonio,
That’s a fair point.
Find a Muslim baker and try it. See if they would make a cake with the depiction of Mohammed on it.
If he refuses… lets see what happens.
But the trick… is finding a Muslim bakery that will make you any cake first.
-G
@Ian Michael Gumby
That’s one reason not to take s@@tlibs, feminists and their LGBTQxyz allies very seriously. While they are out to destroy this Christian baker, you will hear nary a word of criticism of how Islam (or Sub-Saharan Africans) treat women and gays.
I don’t want to understand, reconcile or dialogue with these people, I want a DIVORCE.
Let them have their multicult, leftist utopia.
antonio
Never forget: The process is the punishment. Jack Phillip has placed a bullseye on himself fort having the audacity to stand up and oppose the far left.
Even if he ultimately wins, the hell he’s going through will be enough to raise the question in the minds of others: “Even though I’m right, Is it really worth it for me to fight?”
In the art world, there is actually a distinction between “Fine Art versus “Commercial Art” (artwork for hire) which might be factor here.
The term “starving artist” generally refers to fine artists. These artists simply create a piece of artwork – anything the artist themselves want to create, then sell it as is if a buyer happens to want it.
For hire artists (commercial artists) the customer is basically the “Art Director/Creative Director” that hires the artist to do the work. The artist basically follows a blueprint of what to create.
In other words in the “Commercial Artist” world, 100% of the artwork is chosen by the customer – not an already existing piece of artwork. So this might differentiate a “public accommodation” as defined by the Civil Rights Act, which carries an $11,000 fine per violation by DOJ.
Other mitigating circumstances might be whether the vendor/artist is in a market with lots of consumer choices (large cities, etc) versus a rural community with few choices (a customer may have to travel many hours driving to find a non-bigoted cake shop).
Lastly, to the best of my knowledge on religion, Jesus actually embraced outcasts, including prostitutes and criminals – not sure he would agree with the cake shop owner either? If you are operating based on Bible law, the cake shop owner would also have to turn down 2nd marriages, divorced people getting married, anyone supporting the death penalty or optional war – equal sins under Christianity.
@Ashcroft’s Zzzzz,
Yes, its a commercial art. Yet you’re a business and you’re being accused of not providing a service to a protected class.
So here’s the issue.
You claim you’ll make him/her/whatever a cake, like a birthday cake.
But you will not make a same sex wedding cake, or a trans gender reveal cake or whatever because that goes against your personal belief. You even put that up on your website while still saying you’re open to sell whatever else to anyone.
(IIRC he also claims not to make Halloween themed cakes or whatever too.)
So you can do some tests.
1) Have a trans activist order a birthday cake.
2) Have a straight couple try and order a wedding cake for a gay couple.
3) Have both a straight and gay couple try to buy a cake for Halloween
Now what that will prove is that he is not discriminating against the individual but the content of message of his work.
That’s what he should do for a defense.
But it has to be done without his knowledge and by individuals he’s never met or knows.
-G
Lastly, to the best of my knowledge on religion, Jesus actually embraced outcasts, including prostitutes and criminals
I don’t know if religion even plays into this. The baker may carry religious values, but I don’t think that needs to be his claim here
Beside, I think the passage your are seeking, “go and sin no more” Jesus went to the prostitutes and criminals to guide them to a relationship with God, that thy may shed there sinful actions. Not to accept their actions.
The old story about asking the man why he robbed banks? ‘because that’s where the money is” . That’s why churches outreach to the criminal…thats where the sin is. Too many spend time preaching to the choir.
Meanwhile.
Colinford Mattis. Princeton-educated M&A attorney. Distributes molotov cocktails. Firebombs an NYPD vehicle during the “mostly peaceful” riots.
Sentenced yesterday.
One year and one day.
Had he not been Antifa, he would have been sentenced for a decade
But an art exhibit featuring Jesus on the cross immersed in a jar of urine is acceptable “expression”, along with disrespecting the Flag and Anthem at sporting events, or bicycling naked down a crowded street, or the corn hole float in the gay pride parade, or a bloody Trump head, .
@Colt,
The issue isn’t a question of his expression, but his inability to make an accommodation for a protected class.
The issue would be that he’s refusing service to a protected class.
For example suppose an openly gay wedding planner came in and asked for a generic wedding cake.
If the baker refuses… then you have to ask why? Is he refusing to sell to an openly gay man?
Is he refusing to sell because the generic wedding cake could be used in a gay wedding reception?
Does he specifically ask the question about the couple… and the wedding planner said they don’t know and why would it matter? Its a generic cake…
Now you start to get into the issue.
If the cake is generic… there isn’t a gay theme or something else like a Halloween cake, or coming out cake… he would be on thin ice.
If the cake was generic but they wanted two men or two women on the cake… he could argue his point.
Now do the same w a straight female wedding planner.
If he doesn’t raise an issue… then you have more of an issue of discrimination.
The argument being made against him is if he is refusing service to a protected class, or just specific products which would go against his beliefs.
-G
Ian:
The baker does sell generic or ready made items to gays and Lesbians. He does not make openly LGBTQ+, Halloween, satanic, or any other decorations that conflict with his Christian beliefs.
The Satanic Temple is now suing cake bakers for refusing to bake cakes that celebrate satan.
The Constitution protects freedom of religion, so the satanists, who are really more humanists than anything, are free to worship how they choose. BUT, the bakers also have free speech. They must sell generic or ready made confections to the Satanic Temple, but they mustn’t be forced to decorate them hailing satan, or else it is compelled speech, as well as interferes with their freedom of religion. If someone believes they might lose their soul if they write such words on a cake, or use satanic imagery, then no court is going to be able to force them to do it.
https://abc7ny.com/the-satanic-temple-lgbtq-discrimination-jack-phillips/2464189/
“Many years ago, I wrote an academic piece on how anti-discrimination laws would inevitably collide with free-speech and free-exercise rights. Those conflicts continued to mount across the country.”
**********************************
Further proof, as if we needed it, that the anti-discrimination movement was always a fraud and always all about power and nothing at all about morality. Once you understand this, you understand the duplicitousness of the Left and their inherent evil ways of operation. They don’t call Satan the “father of lies” (John 8:44) for nothing and using guilt and misguided compassion is just his stock in trade against the weakminded.
To a great extent, you are probably correct. Some people who advocated free speech many years ago are today advocating censorship. Their ideology hasn’t changed, so one has to assume their positions on speech exist solely to benefit themselves.
Mespo- Agreed. To my knowledge, the left has never been “anti-discrimination”; instead, the Left’s rhetoric and ideology posses discrimination against those who are aligned with the Left which as of now includes blacks, LGBTQ+ and Hispanics. On the other hand, discrimination against whites, orientals and heterosexuals who refuse to fall prostrate before the progressive alter not only is tolerated, it is encouraged. Remember Maxine Waters who told her fellow travelers to “get in their faces” and “tell them they are not welcome here.” And in academia, I heard no talk from the Left condemning or even criticizing the black students who demanded separate dorms and even separate graduation ceremonies, or the firing of professors for having conservative views, or the silencing of pro-life students and advocates or Republican student groups. Personally, I think “fraud” is too gentle a word. I would call them an “Al Sharpton.” Nothing could be lower.
Funny you should bring up John chap 8. That is the story of how Jesus rebuked the pharisees for condemning a woman who committed adultery.
Before telling the pharisees that they are from the devil who is a liar, Jesus also said “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone .” and “I judge no one.”
Maybe Mr Masterpiece cake maker would be a little more credible if he was actually following the preaching that he claims to follow.
I do not agre with MC. That however does not mean that he can not claim to be following Christ’s preaching.
The very section you cite did not have Jesus providing hotel rooms for prostitutes.
All christ did was refuse to stone them. Further his final words were “Go and Sin no more” – not “I will make a cake for you celebrating your sin”
There is no construction fo the Bible or New Testament that reqyuires or even allows you to participate in the sin of others.
You are free to argue that homosexuality is not a sin – and I would agree with you – but MC does not.
I would suggest to YOU, that you might take “judge not lest ye be judged” to heart.
Catch a christian evangellical failing to forgive the sin of their brother is to show them as a hypocrite.
Just as is catching them enabling the sins of their brother.
But logic is not a forte of left wing nuts.
You seem to be about as good at reading the bible as the constitution.
“All christ did was refuse to stone them.”
Al the baker wants to do is personally punish the sinners in whatever way he can get away with. That is the only religious belief he is attempting to exercise.
Its an old testament anti-christian belief. Christ tried to quash that belief.
“Catch a christian evangellical failing to forgive the sin of their brother is to show them as a hypocrite.”
Refusing to except a sinner as a customer is not only failing to forgive their sin its casting stones and trying to encourage others to cast stones.
“Refusing to except a sinner as a customer”
He didn’t refuse a customer. The customer could have bought anything in the store. It was the customer that was harassing the seller.
Free market: Willing buyer and a willing seller.
The seller doesn’t have to forgive anyone’s sins. That is not his job. The buyer intentionally created trouble for the seller.
Don’t ask me to forgive you for not understanding free market principles. I won’t. You are encouraging nasty people to cast stones at peaceful people.
“The seller doesn’t have to forgive anyone’s sins. ”
That is correct. It is obvious that this baker is not forgiving and never will be, which as John Say points out means he is a hypocrite.
In case you don’t know what hypocrite means – it means he is just pretending to hold the christian belief that he expects will justify his actions.
It is amazing – those of you on the left are always so certain you know why others are doing something.
Mr. Phillips is not “pretending” to hold some beleif – it is pretty damn obvious he ACTUALLY holds that beleif.
You can argue his beleif is WRONG – but claiming that it is just an act makes you a fool.
You claim Phillips does not forgive gays for their sin – on what basis ?
I can forgive someone for murder and still refuse to give them a gun.
Mr. Phillips may be WRONG. He may be applying Christ’s teachings incorrectly – though YOU have thus far displayed ZERO understanding of those teachings. Mr. Phillips may face harsh judgement from his own god, But he is not actually a hypocrit.
Baking the cake would make him a hypocrite.
“In case you don’t know what hypocrite means – it means he is just pretending to hold the christian belief that he expects will justify his actions.”
You lack proper understanding of the word hypocrite, not in its dictionary meaning but in its application. Where you completely fail is in the use of logic.
It is not punishing people to refuse to lend your skills to advocate for their views.
You should be no more required to make a cake for a Gay wedding than one with Nazi symbols.
Refusing to do what someone else wants is not punishing them.
Please quit abusing words.
“Refusing to except a sinner as a customer is not only failing to forgive their sin its casting stones and trying to encourage others to cast stones.”
Philips has not refused them as customers. Gay people are free to buy any cake in his store.
Phillips will sell Gay people any off the self wedding cake in his store.
What he will NOT do is sell a custom cake that he designs advocating their message.
—
So according to you – it is NOT ok for those on the left to boycot things they do not like ?
Do you actually think about what you post before you click post ?
Nope – Mr. Phillips has not cast a single stone. He has also not cast a single cake.
I would further note while Phillips is free to encourage others to withhold services that advocate for what some people beleive are sins,
That is NOT what he is doing.
I know that logic and reality are hard for you left wing nuts.
John Say wrote: “however does not mean that he can not claim to be following Christ’s preaching. ”
He can claim to be following Christ as many people do.
but
Christ said “by their deeds you shall know them”
That is correct. Mr. Phillips beleives that in refusing to make cakes endorsing gay weddings he is following the requirements of his god.
I – and I beleive you, think that is not the case.
If Mr. Phillips is on the wrong side of his god, his god will punish him.
If Your judgment of Mr. Phillips conduct is bad – you are free to boycot him.
JUst as he is free to essentially boycott making cakes endoesing gay marraige.
Anon:
“J also said “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone .” and “I judge no one.”
****************
Seems to me that Jesus did plenty of “judging” with these Dim precursors in John ch8 and later in the Temple with those usurious money lenders. (Whips are pretty judgey). Seems most Dims are perverts and evil So not only do they get “judged,” they get punished for eternity.
Seems to me that Jesus did plenty of “judging”
OK according to you, Jesus is no better than the cake baker.
But at least you grasp the base point. This is about the cake baker trying to execute judgement. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your sentences are attrocious.
No one is being executed.
Absolutely Phillips is passing judgement.
We all do that all the time – are you going to refrain from passing Judgement on the Nazi’s ?
Your arguments are a self contradictory hypocritical mess.
In your world it is OK to force your views on others, but not OK for them to resist.
People who refuse to do as you demand are advocating.
But those doing the demanding are neutral.
Just find another baker. And feel lucky that Phillips is making it openly clear he does not wish to bake cakes endorsing gay weddings.
He could as Abimelech in Judges 9:45 just sew his cakes for gay weddings with salt or otherwise make them unpaletable.
Since this baker’s case has failed so far, if he still wishes to run his bakery maybe the icing on the cake is a solution. That he start a policy of signing most every product they make with the company logo of a fish made of colored icing.
Or a larger work the symbol of Noah’s Ark W/Rainbow above it of God’s promise? 😉
Here in the United States under our system of capitalism there is something called the “Free Market”. Letting customers decide what’s best for their needs, but I digress, most on Turley’s blog have no interest in letting people decide what’s best for them. It’s their way, or no way.
As many people here have noted, in a Free Market, they could of just as easily decided what is best for them was to just go to another bakery.
But no. They had to have it their way, take the baker to court to force the baker to make a cake against his religious convictions.
“Free Market”
You have the wrong definition. Def: willing buyer and willing seller