In prior columns, academic articles, and my book, “The Indispensable Right, I discuss the never-ending litigation targeting Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who declined to make cakes that violated his religious beliefs. Phillips continues to be the subject of continuing lawsuits despite the Supreme Court upholding his right to decline to make expressive products for ceremonies or celebrations that he finds immoral. Now the Colorado Supreme Court has dismissed an action brought by a transgender lawyer against the cake shop and its owner.
Phillips has been the target of an unrelenting litigation campaign for over a decade.
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make a cake for their same-sex marriage. As a devout Christian, Phillips declined. He would sell any pre-made cakes to customers, but said that he could not morally make a cake for same-sex marriages.
That refusal turned Phillips’ tiny bakery into ground zero for the long-standing battle between religious rights and anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Phillips must make the cakes under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in what many of us hoped would be a final resolution of this conflict. I had long criticized the framing of the case (and other cases) under the religious clauses as opposed to taking this as a matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a maddening 2018 decision that technically ruled in favor of Phillips based on a finding that the Commission showed anti-religious bias against Phillips.
As a result, Phillips was thrown back into an endless grind of litigation as activists targeted his bakery for additional challenges by demanding cakes with other messages that Phillips found offensive.
In 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis when it ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse service to a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ … They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means.’”
The decision was not just a vindication for Smith but Phillips. However, Phillips continued to languish in the Colorado system, spending over a decade in non-stop challenges and lawsuits. Because the Supreme Court could not reach a clear resolution, it left Phillips to the continued pursuit of activists targeting his bakery.
The latest dispute began when Autumn Scardina spoke to the wife of Phillips and requested a pink cake with blue frosting to celebrate her gender transition. When the shop declined, Scardina filed an anti-discrimination claim with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (“the Division”) under section 24-34-306, C.R.S. (2024).
In her complaint, Scardina suggested that this was not a targeting of the famous cake shop but merely an effort to get a birthday cake.
In the complaint, Scardina wrote: “Ms. Scardina repeatedly heard Defendants’ advertisements that they were “happy” to sell birthday cakes to LGBT individuals. Hopeful that these claims were true, on June 26, 2017, Ms. Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop from Denver to order a birthday cake for her upcoming birthday.”
The shop said that they could make such a cake. However, “Ms. Scardina then informed Masterpiece Cakeshop that the requested design had personal significance for her because it reflects her status as a transgender female.” When the shop noted that it did not make cakes for gender transitions, Scardina insisted that it was for her birthday.
Having established the basis for the lawsuit, she then filed an administrative action. Eventually, however, she jumped from the administrative process into the courts. That would prove the procedural problem for the Colorado Supreme Court.
Scardina prevailed in the lower courts but the case was dismissed by the Colorado Supreme Court on technical grounds.
Justice Melissa Hart wrote in the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority opinion that
“The underlying constitutional question this case raises has become the focus of intense public debate: How should governments balance the rights of transgender individuals to be free from discrimination in places of public accommodation with the rights of religious business owners when they are operating in the public market? We cannot answer that question.”
The most notable aspect of this opinion is that, after a decade, Phillips is still being dragged through the courts despite the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized his free speech right to decline such contracts.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has defended Phillips and Jake Warner, ADF senior counsel, stated “Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone.”
It is doubtful that activists will heed that request.
Here is the opinion: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
Why do they avoid going to Muslim bakeries? Is it because they would leave with their heads in a pink box?
Not necessarily. It’s entirely possible they’d be thrown off the roof of the Muslim bakery if there is a Muslim bakery.
Jack Phillips “lacks a valid reason for refusing to sell them a cake . . .”
That right there is the essence of the Left’s tyranny over the individual’s conscience.
We (Clinton, Kerry, CO, et al.) don’t like your reasons. So we’re using the government’s police powers to compel you to violate your conscience — and to accept ours.
“I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” (Jefferson)
Sam
It could be argued that a Merchant who chooses to take part in general public commerce must accept money that is legal tender regardless of the source. Otherwise it’s considered discrimination. Not sure how far this would go legally. Another tech is the idea that someone’s religion is somehow about somebody else. I for one do not make my religion about other people, but….In a country where free expression is allowed (without removing the rights of others) it seems like any religion or religious person ought to be able to classify their primary directive as not self-centered but outwardly focused.
To counter the first argument it seems like forcing a Merchant to receive legal tender from anyone regardless of whom, could be turned around to an argument for refusing to take money from a drug dealer or a murderer etc.
“It could be argued that . . .”
By a collectivist who believes that an individual loses his rights once he offers a product for “public commerce.”
First, the facts:
1. Jack Phillips offered any standard item that anyone else could buy, except custom works for the express purposes of celebrating or advertising something was contrary to his devoutly held religious beliefs. Which included divorce, among other things.
2. Charlie Craig and David Mullins were married in MA.
3. Same-sex marriage in an abomination in the Bible, and in CO it was also illicit at the time at issue, according to the highest law of the land, by amendment to the CO constitution. which also did not recognized out-of-state marriages.
4. The express purpose of the wedding cakes was to celebrate a same-sex wedding.
5. Custom cakes as this are very costly custom works or art and which must be preordered.
6. The members of the Co civil rights commission are not elected, but appointed by the governor with consent of the senate.
7. Complicity is a legal aspect in jurisprudence. If a mechanic fixes a machine knowing that its express purpose is to engage in illegal activity, then he may be held accountable for facilitating it.
8. Phillips refused to be complicit in an immoral and illicit union, which he would be facilitating by creating a custom work for that express purpose.
9. Had this been a case of refusing to create a cake for the express purpose of celebrating a political, or hard rock,or KKK rally, then the offended parties could not bring any charges of discrimination since how such feel and what they practice is not considered grounds for justifying the granting of protected status for them.
10. However, if it was a case of a interracial marriage btwn a man and a women being refused such a custom work, then they would be grounds for charges of discrimination since, race is a protected class, as there is no necessary moral component regarding such aspects as race, skin color, national origin, or religion.
11. In contrast, homosexuals have been granted protected status based upon their feelings and practices, which are fundamentally immoral, and overall deleterious to both individuals and society, greatly both in health and costs, relative to their activity, while unlike procreation in a traditional marriage, it provides no replenishment to society.
12. If a consensual religious practice – lets say the Lord’s supper – was shown to be responsible for up to 81% of new HIV cases aged 13 and older among men – – despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population – and up to 92% of new HIV among youth, and (historically) a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death, despite decades of attempting to tame it into being “safe,” and at the cost of billions to tax payers (search: “Negative effects of homosexual relations (also heterosexual fornication)”, then it would be treated as the plague.
God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them – man and women – together in marriage – as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) thereby rendering all other sexual unions to be fornication, and the Lord Jesus condemned all fornications. (Mark 7:21–23) Moreover, Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with (see linked page).
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47)
The devil is a tricky man. If he can’t get you outright he’ll lie. He has no laws nor rules. He can’t get you for what you would not do.
Yes, the escape is never deviate from the rules and laws.
The Dems keep blaming the lack of enthusiasm for Kamala on her being a woman, suggesting sexism is the reason. The latest is none other than Obama:
https://nypost.com/2024/10/10/us-news/barack-obama-admits-harris-campaign-doesnt-have-the-energy-his-white-house-runs-did-claims-black-men-opposed-to-her-arent-feeling-the-idea-of-hav/
But doesn’t that just show how their own identity politics limits their ability to think analytically? I mean there has been plenty of enthusiasm for female politicians who are intelligent, charismatic, and have leadership aptitude (Margaret Thatcher and Georgia Meloni come to mind). Kamala notably lacks all these qualities. In brief, she is truly awful. I believe that’s the real reason there is so little enthusiasm for her and she cannot draw a crowd.
* “she is truly awful”
I’ll second that. Let’s take a vote.
Barrack Obama
Perhaps Barry will soon be held accountable for his crimes.
What a stupid comment.
Without a doubt and eternally as has always been…
Good observations! I think she is a machine politician. She has never had to truly think for herself. Therefore, she lacks skills in debate and extemporaneous public speaking.
She has a few Cliff Notes memorized and regurgitates them when asked a question. Second verse, same as the first.
Wax on, wax off paint the fence, sand the floor., etc. she is incapable of the poised crane technique, nor can she improvise. 🙂
Clinton Lost and Trump won because people did not want 4 More years of Obamanomics. 8 years of abysmal 1.48% growth was enough.
In 2024 it does not appear that people want 4 more years of Bidenomics – god alone knows what actual growth has been after adjusting for inflation.
Several posters here celebrate record high DJIA numbers – but the DJIA is not adjusted for inflation, and it is absolutely possitively fully affected by inflation. All inflation everywhere in the country will be reflected in the DJIA, and if you adjust the Dow for inflation it is hard to tell if there was ANY growth since the end of 2020.
If you are on the left and wish to fight over that – just go out and ask real people about the economy.
There are only two possibilities:
The economy Sucks – much worse than under Obama,
The 75% of the country that thinks the economy sucks is suffering from mass psychosis.
While my bet is on the former and there is lots to support that.
Neither answer leads to a Harris WhiteHouse.
Is Harris a worse candidate than Obama – absolutely. Without a teleprompter her remarks are at best indecipherable nonsense and at worst completely incomprehensible. There were claims she had a drinking problem earlier -I doubt that, she would be more coherent if Drunk.
She is clearly NOT demented and Still can not speak in Public as Well as Biden.
Separately Joe seems to be gleefully knifing Harris in the back – while frankly appearing more Competent than Harris.
Regardless, this is not about Race, or sex.
If Condeleza Rice ran for President – I would vote for her.
And Democrats stabbed Tulsi Gabbard – their REAL Condeleza Rice in the back – and now she is a Trump supporter and might as well be a republican.
The Coming Trump administration is likely to Feature Gabbard and RFK Jr. as well as Musk.
A good sign that Trump is doing significantly better at finding Good people this time arround.
Please Trump – NO MORE NEO-CONS in 2025!
I would note that Harris burns to the ground the Strongest attacks on Trump.
Harris spent decades as Arm Candy to the powerful and Famous. Trump is about the only powerful famous person she did not have a fling with.
And Harris’s husband makes Trump look like a choirboy.
Harris is not a bad candidate because she is black or Asian or a woman.
She is just a Bad Candidate.
I support the baker’s point of view. But he is a pos Christian.
Care to explain a little further?
So Don’t buy cakes from Phillips – I wouldn’t.
I will defend the right of Nazis to march through the streets.
I will also be out on the sidewalk with candles protesting their march.
Phillips should “make the dam cakes”.
but he should NOT be FORCED to make the cakes.
“Phillips should “make the dam cases”.
His business, his risk, his decisions. A business owner should politely tell people whose business he doesn’t want that he doesn’t want their business. Those with no investment in his business, government or individual, should stick to their own knitting. That Democrats wanted to claim Constitutional rights to racism with “whites only” is what instituted the camel’s nose getting under the tent that has led to this goldmine for slip and fall personal injury lawyers looking to dry the tears of activist gender blenders and homosexuals wanting to file hurt feelings reports to wage lawfare.
If they get snotty about a polite “no”, then if the business owner doesn’t have some religious or other code to live up to, then he should cheerfully tell them to go fvck themselves and quite being oxygen thieves in his immediate area.
* pos? He’s trying.
Public scorn toward religion courtesy of Gretchen Whitmer, the Democrat governor of Michigan:
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1844458249619374400
Her day is coming, have no fear. Mocking God has a funny way of turning around on one.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for her to spit on any other religion besides Christianity.
God is mocked by Christians who ignore the most basic of commands Jesus gave… selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor, taking in immigrants into your home, visiting inmates in prison. I’m sure this is what you do, but for those Christians who think these are metaphors, read Matthew 25:31-46. If Christianity is a life style filled with Christian speak, and you ignore the clear command of Jesus… you’re going to hell.
* The eucharist. Doritos taste better than wafers. The apple on the tree. Gluttony perhaps..who are your priests maybe. she’s a snake I guess.
Definite mockery and mockery of free speech. The pleasures of the flesh in a dorito.
Pretty bad
^^^^^ Watched old man from…video above. Fyi
Get a good supply of books, comfortable clothes, a good lounge chair. Better than the gaslighting dystopia
Would it be constitutional for a baker to deny a cake to interracial couples? Decades ago Bible verses were cherry-picked out of context and manipulated to discriminate against interracial marriages like the marriages of Clarence Thomas and Mitch McConnell.
When our very conservative U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBT-Americans have the same rights as straight couples to marry and adopt children, that conservative LGBT ruling was built upon the “Loving v. Virginia” case (granting equal rights to interracial married couples).
If the baker discriminated against an interracial couple marrying, the “Civil Rights Act” imposes civil and criminal penalties (about $11,000 per violation) to the business owner. Why are LGBT rights any different?
If the baker was a sole-proprietorship model of business it would be legal (the owner is the same as the company). If the baker is an LLC or corporation, there are 2 entities: the human-owner and corporate-person.
Corporate-Persons have no religious beliefs. CP’s are totally and legally separate from the Human-Person. This system protects the business owners from losing personal assets using this Corporate-Person system.
If the baker wants to discriminate, he or she needs to convert to a sole-proprietorship model. LLCs or corporations have no religious rights.
The very way you pose the question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the law. The Constitution says nothing about how people must run a business; rather, it protects individual rights from government overreach.
Second, you misrepresent the facts. Nobody is denying anybody a cake. He sells cakes to whoever wants to buy one. The only thing he refuses to do is express a message he disagrees with, a right he has under the First Amendment.
Cyanide on Aisle 9
What I should have said is: You don’t know Jack, he’ll sell a cake to anyone. 😂
What you maybe should have said, “You don’t know Hillary, she’ll sell yellow cake to anyone!😎”
Traveler, your method might not be legal, but it is appropriate.
Free exchange – the foundation of a free market requires that BOTH the Buyer and the Seller are FREE to trade value for value.
The freedom to do something does NOT exist unless the freedom to NOT do that same thing exists.
The courts have as of yet failed to grasp that – Religion, free expression, free speech are NOT the core to these cases.
Unless you are free to say NO – for any reason, or no reason at all – you are not free, you do not have a free market.
And that hasmany consequences – such as a slower rise in standard of living.
You are not free to make good choices unless you are also free to make bad ones.
“Corporate-Persons have no religious beliefs. CP’s are totally and legally separate from the Human-Person. …If the baker wants to discriminate, he or she needs to convert to a sole-proprietorship model. LLCs or corporations have no religious rights.”
The baker can convert to sole proprietorship, but why? The baker has reasons for the structure of his business and shouldn’t change how he handles his affairs because another has nothing better to do than to abuse a religious person.
Yes, an LLC (Limited Liability Company) can have religious rights in certain contexts, particularly when it is closely held or operated by individuals who hold strong religious beliefs. In the U.S., the Supreme Court has addressed this in cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). In this case, the Court ruled that closely held, for-profit corporations could be exempt from regulations that conflict with their owners’ religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). —Chat GPT. Note the citation
Don’t lose sight of the fact that the baker has rights even in a corporation he owns. The whole question is foolish and based on a Supreme Court decision that did not think things out well.
No one should be forced to provide his work product indiscriminately.
Whatever happened to the Owner retains the right to serve their customers? If MAMBLA wanted a cake with a pedophile based theme message would this still fall under Colorado’s anti discrimination laws? This is ridiculous and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I am delighted the cake shop doesn’t give in. I would do the same as the owner. The only thing that works is fighting back deadlier than they can. I have been somewhat involved in fighting lawfare. It takes money, focus, and targeting the right people. On one issue the lawfare stopped quickly.
Why should a white person have to serve a black person or a Mexican?
Your statement appears to be from an uneducated person.
One can look at it in at least 2 ways.
1) You are a racist and don’t like white people.
2) You do not understand individual rights.
Anonymous – Every single Church in the country is a corporation.
Corporation just means one or more individuals acting together for a common purpose.
“Would it be constitutional for a baker to deny a cake to interracial couples? ”
Yes any law that bars private parties from freely choosing who they engage in free exchange with is unconstitutional – see the contracts clause as well as immoral, stupid and unenforceable.
The Civil Rights act can legitimately bar government from discriminating on the basis of Race.
It can not interfere with private free choice.
Aside from being unconstitutional such laws are also violations of the social contract.
Governments exist to secure liberty not infringe on it.
As with Speech it is not just choices we like that are protected, it is choices we do not.
Governments exist to protect liberty from force, again even liberty we do not like.
If we do not protect the rights of people we do not like, we can not expect our own rights to be protected.
If we do not protect rights we do not like – there are no rights.
The supreme court correctly found in Loving that Government could not discriminate against inter-racial couples.
It has never found – and can not legitimately find that individuals can not discriminate against inter-racial couples.
That claim is ludicrous. Values change over time. The left celebrates that – as if changing values inexorably lead to Truth.
Or that sometimes values change because condition change.
Prohibitions against homosexuality – will still exist in much of the world, rest on survival of the species. It took hundreds of thousands of years of humanity procreating constantly for populations to reach small numbers of millions globally. During that time many groups, tribes, etc were entirely wiped out. Pretty much all the prohibitions that we think are wrong headed and archiac had quite rational basis in their time.
I would further note that should circumstances change again many of those prohibitions will come back in some form.
Russia, China, Japan are in a demographic death spiral. No nation in history has survived the collapses in population we are seeing.
Maybe it will work out – but if it does not, or even if it does – there is a strong possibility those nations will enact many of the same laws etc. that the left today thinks are vile. China made childbirth illegal and forced abortions even murdering children immediately after they were born arguing the threat of the population bubble and the common good,. Currently they are actively encouraging larger families – to no success. Do you really beleive that a nation that has used FORCE to control population in the past will not do so in the future ?
While Russia, China and Japan are in really bad shape. Most of Western Europe has problems large enough it is implimenting voluntary encouragement – just as China is currently, again with little success.
If your values are not anchored in solid principles – almost anything can be the “common good”
We saw draconian Bad policies implimented in response to covid – do you really think the foundations of all the left holds dear are so anchored that if they are no longer in the common good they are safe ?
Individual liberty is the value – the principle that protects inter-racial couples, Homosexuality, gay marraige, Transexuality, and pretty much everything the left holds dear.
But it also protects the right of others to disagree, and to act freely outside of government.
Try to rest all of what you think is important on anything but individual liberty which REQUIRES that you respect the right of others to think, speak and ACT as if your values are wrong, and you will find that YOUR values are as vulnerable as those that you loath.
I do not beleive that Trump is a “threat to democracy” – but I KNOW that if he ACTS as those on the left have – He is.
“Corporate-Persons have no religious beliefs. CP’s are totally and legally separate from the Human-Person. This system protects the business owners from losing personal assets using this Corporate-Person system.”
There is no “corporate person system”.
The Legal contract of treating a corporation like a person with the same rights as a person is just a simplifaction of the FACT that
Human-Persons do NOT lose any of their rights when they act together.
If a man marries a woman – neither loses their natural and constitutional rights in what they do jointly.
If 20 people gather together to form a church or a civic group – they do not lose their rights.
All Businesses are made up of and owned by Human-Persons. You can obliterate the simplification of Corporate personhood and you are STILL Obligated to accept the FACT that humans do NOT lose any rights at all when they act in groups.
There is only one type of Person – and those persons have rights individually and they have rights when they act Corporately.
The meaning of the Word Corporate is individuals acting together.
Corporate Personhood is Many individuals Acting together fora common purpose.
It is your idiotic claim that Corporations do not have rights – that they can not have religious beleifs or values or ….
That is absolutely absurd. The Catholic Church is one of the largest corporate bodies in the world and they most definitely hold religious beleifs. Every church on the planet is corporate. It is many individuals acting together for a shared religious beleif.
Greenpeace may not have specific religious beliefs – but it most definitely has beliefs.
The Beleifs or a corporation are determined by the individuals who make up that corporation.
Corporations may or may not have religious beleifs – just as individuals may or may not.
Answer: Yes, absolutely and irrefutably.
* I’ll comment with all respect due to all parties.
To the baker at Masterpiece cakes: You’re in a world of such immorality and lawlessness what could it matter if you bake a cake to avoid unending harassment? Men are marrying men and that’s called Hell. Those who compel you to walk a mile ,walk two miles. Bake two cakes.
If the baker stands with morality in recognition of the categorical moral imperative in the command to not do adultery then there is no fault. It is his free will choosing.
It is also recognized that others have free will to commit adulterous acts. The lgbtq group shall not be harmed by conversion therapies of any kind.
Lgbtq falls into the adulterous command. The courts have written for you an immoral adulterous law. It is anti religion and there shall be no law written as such due to the 1st amendment nor can there be any person compelled nor coerced to follow an immoral anti-religion law.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. It is correct to throw case out.
* the case out
* the court tossed it for a process reason not based in the 1st amendment.
The baker establishes a contract for specific cakes. He declined the contract. The couple were not refused a cake in general as food or celebration. Therecakes within the commerce stream for sale.
Religious prosecution in all of these cases. People shall not be prosecuted for religion, speech nor press. That’s what FREE means. Free from prosecution! The lawsuit is prosecution criminal or civil.
* At some time there was something called truth. Truth was thought a good thing. People sought truth. If people sought truth today there wouldn’t be slander and libel nor defamation. Carron Phillips would have asked the H.A. parents the meaning of the costume before printing his article.
So it goes
* There was a time when people thought children did best when they the knew mother and father. There was a time of godparents if both parents died someone would care for the children.
Marriage and lgbtq aren’t really about Marriage children. Back in the 60s 70s orphan populations grew and grew in Brazil. They ran wild in the streets. The police began shooting them like rats. It made the cover of “Life” magazine .
So it goes
Jonathan: Your sympathies are clearly with Jack Phillips–the poor baker who continues to “languish in the Colorado system, spending over a decade in non-stop challenges and lawsuits”. I don’t think Phillips deserves any sympathy. He opened a business to ostensibly serve all-commers. Except Phillips’ God told him he did not have to serve the LGBTQ+ community. That got him in trouble with Colorado and its anti-discrimination statute. Phillips was saved by the SC that declared he was entitled to discriminate against some of his customers based on his “religious beliefs”. That disgraceful decision by the SC encouraged Phillips to discriminate against Autumn Scardina who is transgender. Eventually a new SC will recognize how egregious were its decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative v. Elenis and will overturn them–just as the Court overturned Dred Scott.
Phillips may be a “devout Christian” but he seems to have ignored the second commandment of Jesus who told his followers to “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39). It’s disgraceful you would endorse Phillips’ discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community!
How long have you been in America? Were not taught about the Constitution and Bill of Rights in public school? No customer or local, state or federal government has any power to deny Phillips’ right to private property and his right to “claim and exercise” dominion over his private property. And no legislation at any level that denies Phillips his 5th Amendment right to private property is constitutional. Government has the power to “take” the bakery with just compensation. Your time might be better spent requesting that your Congressman open that process.
And the same is true with allowing blacks to stay in my motel, right?
If my religion says white should not mix with black I get to deny blacks accommodation in my motel.
Except…the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t discriminate like that. Commerce is open to all. But Philips god (lower case god, very lower case) is so weak he can’t stand you associate with LGBTQ+.
Learn some Supreme Court case. Unless you think Dred Scott should be reinstated.
You don’t know Jack, he’ll associate with anyone and he’ll sell a cake to anyone. The only thing he won’t do is speak a message he disagrees with. So for example he would not make a “Death to America“ cake for a heterosexual couple.
This is actually not true. In the original case he only offered off the rack premade cakes. He would not make a custom cake without the two men on top.
i posted the below but i do not see it. I will try to do it as signed in next.
First, the facts:
1. Jack Phillips offered any standard item that anyone else could buy, except custom works for the express purposes of celebrating or advertising something was contrary to his devoutly held religious beliefs. Which included divorce, among other things.
2. Charlie Craig and David Mullins were married in MA.
3. Same-sex marriage in an abomination in the Bible, and in CO it was also illicit at the time at issue, according to the highest law of the land, by amendment to the CO constitution. which also did not recognized out-of-state marriages.
4. The express purpose of the wedding cakes was to celebrate a same-sex wedding.
5. Custom cakes as this are very costly custom works or art and which must be preordered.
6. The members of the Co civil rights commission are not elected, but appointed by the governor with consent of the senate.
7. Complicity is a legal aspect in jurisprudence. If a mechanic fixes a machine knowing that its express purpose is to engage in illegal activity, then he may be held accountable for facilitating it.
8. Phillips refused to be complicit in an immoral and illicit union, which he would be facilitating by creating a custom work for that express purpose.
9. Had this been a case of refusing to create a cake for the express purpose of celebrating a political, or hard rock,or KKK rally, then the offended parties could not bring any charges of discrimination since how such feel and what they practice is not considered grounds for justifying the granting of protected status for them.
10. However, if it was a case of a interracial marriage btwn a man and a women being refused such a custom work, then they would be grounds for charges of discrimination since, race is a protected class, as there is no necessary moral component regarding such aspects as race, skin color, national origin, or religion.
11. In contrast, homosexuals have been granted protected status based upon their feelings and practices, which are fundamentally immoral, and overall deleterious to both individuals and society, greatly both in health and costs, relative to their activity, while unlike procreation in a traditional marriage, it provides no replenishment to society.
12. If a consensual religious practice – lets say the Lord’s supper – was shown to be responsible for up to 81% of new HIV cases aged 13 and older among men – – despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population – and up to 92% of new HIV among youth, and (historically) a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death, despite decades of attempting to tame it into being “safe,” and at the cost of billions to tax payers (search: “Negative effects of homosexual relations (also heterosexual fornication)”, then it would be treated as the plague.
God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them – man and women – together in marriage – as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) thereby rendering all other sexual unions to be fornication, and the Lord Jesus condemned all fornications. (Mark 7:21–23) Moreover, Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with (see linked page).
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47)
See the January 5, 2025 at 11:21 PM reply, in addition to https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/10/negative-effects-of-homosexual.html and https://peacebyjesus.net/homosex_versus_the_bible.html
Should Barbra Streisand be forced to sing at Trump’s next inaugural event? I mean if you sing at one you have to sing at anyone’s who requests you to do so? If not, why not. Idiot!
Is everyone a neighbor? Is Trump your neighbor? Putin?
No one is buying this BS, the trannies are full of it, and we can associate, as may they, with whomever.
That being said, these particular trannies are malicious, vindictive, and spoiled-ass rotten. They have had their say in court and likely the only thing that need be said to them going forward was not, but should have been, imparted to them at a much younger age. These people need to be taken out behind the woodshed and taught a lesson so they know that they are a small insignificant part of the universe and that the universe is a cold heartless place.
Yeah I think everyone is a neighbor (as I understand the Good Samaritan parable) but DM is exceedingly shallow in all of his comments. Here he assumes loving thy neighbor means Jack must affirm what Jack believes is harmful to the buyer’s spiritual well-being, simply because DM never thinks even one level beneath the surface. DM is probably the most boring commenter who shows up here day after day.