Federal Court Rules Colorado Cannot Block Christian Baker’s Lawsuit Over State’s Hostility Toward Hi

[rangerrebew]

Federal Court Rules Colorado Cannot Block Christian Baker’s Lawsuit Over State’s Hostility Toward His Beliefs

(CNSNews.com) – A federal district court ruled [1] Friday that Colorado cannot block an attempt by Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips to sue the state over its “hostility” towards him and his Christian beliefs.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) represents Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, in the lawsuit.

As CNSNews.com previously reported [2], the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in June 2018, saying the commission “violated the Free Exercise Clause” by requiring Phillips to go against his religious beliefs about gay marriage and design a customized wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins.

 
Source URL: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/federal-court-rules-colorado-cannot-block-christian-bakers-lawsuit-over

[Wingnut]

I hope he prevails.  Even more so now that the state has sued him again for resisting faggotry

[truth_seeker]

"True conservatives" were disappointed in 1984 when President Reagan called his old friend Rock Hudson, in Paris, a few days before Hudson's death.

"True conservatives" had hopped Reagan would do more, to "resist faggotry."

[Wingnut]

Hey strawman...No one forced him to bake him a cake.

[Cyber Liberty]

"True conservatives" were disappointed in 1984 when President Reagan called his old friend Rock Hudson, in Paris, a few days before Hudson's death.

"True conservatives" had hopped Reagan would do more, to "resist faggotry."

Is there a point you're making here?  Because I don't get it.  Can I get a clue by noticing the scare quote you put around "true conservatives?"  As opposed to the fake plastic kind?

[Sanguine]

Is there a point you're making here?  Because I don't get it.  Can I get a clue by noticing the scare quote you put around "true conservatives?"  As opposed to the fake plastic kind?

I think maybe he's objecting to the use of "faggotry".  @truth_seeker please correct me if I'm wrong.

I tend to agree with him.  I don't like and will fight developing special rights for certain groups of people, but I don't see the need to promiscuously denigrate them either.  If they're not asking for special rights their sexual orientation is none of my business.

[truth_seeker]

I think maybe he's objecting to the use of "faggotry".  @truth_seeker please correct me if I'm wrong.

I tend to agree with him.  I don't like and will fight developing special rights for certain groups of people, but I don't see the need to promiscuously denigrate them either.  If they're not asking for special rights their sexual orientation is none of my business.

My opinion is, that "conservatism" has done itself no favors, over the homosexuality topic.

Reagan was more/less okay in 1984. Peter Theil spoke at the 2016 GOP convention.
In a nutshell, continuing to "resist faggotry" is not a winning hand, if you desire to win elections.

[Cyber Liberty]

My opinion is, that "conservatism" has done itself no favors, over the homosexuality topic.

Real or plastic?  Or just people that aren't real "conservatives" because they disagree with you about something?

(I'm with @Sanguine on this, BTW.)

[txradioguy]

Is there a point you're making here?  Because I don't get it.  Can I get a clue by noticing the scare quote you put around "true conservatives?"  As opposed to the fake plastic kind?

@Cyber Liberty

He's mocking us and mocking those that believe homosexuality is wrong.

Because you know...morals are sooooooooo 20th Century.

[Sanguine]

@Cyber Liberty

He's mocking us and mocking those that believe homosexuality is wrong.

Because you know...morals are sooooooooo 20th Century.

I don't think so, @txradioguy.  I just don't think it's any of my business.  Why would it be?

[txradioguy]

My opinion is, that "conservatism" has done itself no favors, over the homosexuality topic.

Reagan was more/less okay in 1984. Peter Theil spoke at the 2016 GOP convention.
In a nutshell, continuing to "resist faggotry" is not a winning hand, if you desire to win elections.

What you fail to understand and the reason why you find it so easy to mock conservatism is becasue unlike you...Conservatives aren't wedded to an ideology.

Conservatism is a set of beliefs...it's not linked to any particular ideology.  You don't get that and hence don't understand why the people you mock are conservatives and always will be such.

It also shows you don't understand the history of this country either.

[txradioguy]

I don't think so, @txradioguy.  I just don't think it's any of my business.  Why would it be?

@Sanguine

The sexual orientation?  As long as someone isn't shoving the fact they are gay or whatever the latest letter in the LGBTQABCDEFG is today and telling me I have to accept them and give in to their demands for special carve outs...it's not.

But that's not how the militant gay community and their Democrat political allies works these days is it?

Nope...we've got minute sections of the population dictating what the majority must say...do...how they must behave around their little group...and if you don't...if you're brave enough to say "what you're doing is wrong and I'm not going to accept your lifestyle"...you're attacked...sometimes physically...you have people try to ruin your livelihood...you're smeared in social media and if you happen to be someone that's somewhat well known you might just have a mob protesting at your house or outside where you work.

The minority has cowed the majority where social issues are concerned and it's gonna get way worse unless people start pushing back like this baker has done.

I'm glad he got to go forward with the lawsuit.  This latest round of legal warfare was staged and instituted the day he won the last case to purposely bring new litigation against him in order for the gay "mafia" to try and ruin someone who doesn't believe the same things they do.

That's totalitarianism at it's finest right there.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

The sexual orientation?  As long as someone isn't shoving the fact they are gay or whatever the latest letter in the LGBTQABCDEFG is today and telling me I have to accept them and give in to their demands for special carve outs...it's not.

But that's not how the militant gay community and their Democrat political allies works these days is it?

Nope...we've got minute sections of the population dictating what the majority must say...do...how they must behave around their little group...and if you don't...if you're brave enough to say "what you're doing is wrong and I'm not going to accept your lifestyle"...you're attacked...sometimes physically...you have people try to ruin your livelihood...you're smeared in social media and if you happen to be someone that's somewhat well known you might just have a mob protesting at your house or outside where you work.

The minority has cowed the majority where social issues are concerned and it's gonna get way worse unless people start pushing back like this baker has done.

I'm glad he got to go forward with the lawsuit.  This latest round of legal warfare was staged and instituted the day he won the last case to purposely bring new litigation against him in order for the gay "mafia" to try and ruin someone who doesn't believe the same things they do.

That's totalitarianism at it's finest right there.

Yep, and that's as far as I went. 

As for the other stuff, "gayness" is just a tool to advance the leftist cause.  And, that is what we need to focus on fighting.

[txradioguy]

Yep, and that's as far as I went. 

As for the other stuff, "gayness" is just a tool to advance the leftist cause.  And, that is what we need to focus on fighting.

Yup 

[Frank Cannon]

Sorry...

[Millee]

ADF noted that the commission filed a formal complaint against Phillips after the Supreme Court ruling because an attorney complained that Phillips refused to “create a cake designed pink on the inside and blue on the outside to celebrate and reflect a gender transition.”

The same attorney later asked Phillips to design a cake with satanic themes and images, but Phillips also refused.

He is being targeted by some POS lefty.  I hope he walks away with at least 9-figures. 

[truth_seeker]

What you fail to understand

In understand full well, that you define "conservatism," to equal Christian morality enforced by civil law/government.

But as it pertains to sexual orientation an increasing fraction of voters, do not.

Judge Roy Moore, is a loser in most states. Saying that, does not make me more or less conservative. I means I am not chained to the past. It means searching for new platforms which meet enough persons' needs, and arrives at a winnng coalition of voters.

 

[Bigun]

In understand full well, that you define "conservatism," to equal Christian morality enforced by civil law/government.

But as it pertains to sexual orientation an increasing fraction of voters, do not.

Judge Roy Moore, is a loser in most states. Saying that, does not make me more or less conservative. I means I am not chained to the past. It means searching for new platforms which meet enough persons' needs, and arrives at a winnng coalition of voters.

Forgive me for butting in, but that means, to me at least, you are willing to surrender in order to win!  NO thank you!

[roamer_1]

In understand full well, that you define "conservatism," to equal Christian morality enforced by civil law/government.

That is not true, though a significant faction of Conservatism centers around the Judeo-Christian Ethic, and thereby, true Conservatives, as defined by the Reagan ideal, will indeed rise to defend the principles of social conservatism, even as they will rise to defend fiscal conservatism, civil-libertarianism, and defense/foreign policy conservatism.

But as it pertains to sexual orientation an increasing fraction of voters, do not.

Judge Roy Moore, is a loser in most states. Saying that, does not make me more or less conservative. I means I am not chained to the past. It means searching for new platforms which meet enough persons' needs, and arrives at a winnng coalition of voters.

All of the rest of this just serves to suppose that principle things are malleable and/or can be discarded. They cannot. Principles are first things. Truths... What other Conservative truths are you willing to sacrifice while calling yourself conservative?

[Sanguine]

That is not true, though a significant faction of Conservatism centers around the Judeo-Christian Ethic, and thereby, true Conservatives, as defined by the Reagan ideal, will indeed rise to defend the principles of social conservatism, even as they will rise to defend fiscal conservatism, civil-libertarianism, and defense/foreign policy conservatism.

All of the rest of this just serves to suppose that principle things are malleable and/or can be discarded. They cannot. Principles are first things. Truths... What other Conservative truths are you willing to sacrifice while calling yourself conservative?

@roamer_1, let me first express my great trepidation in stepping into this argument.  I'm not here solely to argue.

But, what does one's personal sex life (we're not talking illegal or abusive acts, which is a problem of people, not of "identities") have to do with conservatism? 

Also, keep in mind that I have always been against redefining marriage as something other than a woman/man union for the purpose of establishing a nuclear family. 

So, what's the problem? 

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1, let me first express my great trepidation in stepping into this argument.  I'm not here solely to argue.

But, what does one's personal sex life (we're not talking illegal or abusive acts, which is a problem of people, not of "identities") have to do with conservatism? 

Also, keep in mind that I have always been against redefining marriage as something other than a woman/man union for the purpose of establishing a nuclear family. 

So, what's the problem?

@Sanguine
In the broader scheme, there is not a single issue or obstacle to this country that is not a moral one. The dreadful cost in welfare due to drugs, divorce, and sexual immorality will not be ameliorated without abandoning the sexual 'feel good' revolution. The homosexual agenda is part and parcel with all of that. If you care to defend fiscal conservatism, I would like to see how you get there without addressing the above with respect to welfare and health - To include the hugely expensive support of the gay lifestyle, both in money and in broken people.

Secondly, as a matter of federalism and the freedom to associate, the very means of people being able to band together and create an environment suitable for raising their children requires the ability to discriminate on moral grounds. The federal nature of this thing, cramming it down peoples' throats is against federalism, and states rights, not to mention county and community.

If y'all want loose morals, that's fine with me - but don't force me and mine to live that way. I like being able to leave my doors unlocked, and kids being able to know right from wrong, not to mention knowing which bathroom to use...

Soon enough the destruction of culture will doom us all.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
In the broader scheme, there is not a single issue or obstacle to this country that is not a moral one. The dreadful cost in welfare due to drugs, divorce, and sexual immorality will not be ameliorated without abandoning the sexual 'feel good' revolution. The homosexual agenda is part and parcel with all of that. If you care to defend fiscal conservatism, I would like to see how you get there without addressing the above with respect to welfare and health - To include the hugely expensive support of the gay lifestyle, both in money and in broken people.

Secondly, as a matter of federalism and the freedom to associate, the very means of people being able to band together and create an environment suitable for raising their children requires the ability to discriminate on moral grounds. The federal nature of this thing, cramming it down peoples' throats is against federalism, and states rights, not to mention county and community.

If y'all want loose morals, that's fine with me - but don't force me and mine to live that way. I like being able to leave my doors unlocked, and kids being able to know right from wrong, not to mention knowing which bathroom to use...

Soon enough the destruction of culture will doom us all.

Ok, so given all of that, how do we justify the attempts to prevent self destructive behavior, based on the limitations of government set by the Constitution?  For instance, if I wanted to drink myself to death, and didn't drive or endanger anyone else, how does a Conservative use the law to prevent me from doing so?

[roamer_1]

Ok, so given all of that, how do we justify the attempts to prevent self destructive behavior, based on the limitations of government set by the Constitution?  For instance, if I wanted to drink myself to death, and didn't drive or endanger anyone else, how does a Conservative use the law to prevent me from doing so?

Federally? You don't. That is left to the states respectively, and purposefully.

[Sanguine]

Federally? You don't. That is left to the states respectively, and purposefully.

I think we agree.  Homosexuality, when confined to legal activities and not advocating for rights above and beyond the rights of others, is not necessarily antithetical to conservatism. 

[txradioguy]

In understand full well, that you define "conservatism," to equal Christian morality enforced by civil law/government.

But as it pertains to sexual orientation an increasing fraction of voters, do not.

Judge Roy Moore, is a loser in most states. Saying that, does not make me more or less conservative. I means I am not chained to the past. It means searching for new platforms which meet enough persons' needs, and arrives at a winnng coalition of voters.

Clearly you do not understand.  At no point in what I said did I mention Christian anything.  You can be an agnostic and still have a set of core beliefs without religion every coming into it.

Your problem is you hear beliefs or belief system and automatically think "Bible thumper".

And that couldn't be farther from the truth.  So no you really don't understand Conservatism at all.

Please show me where there is statistical evidence to back up your claim of "But as it pertains to sexual orientation an increasing fraction of voters, do not."


And as for Judge Moore...as we've all been reading...there is evidence emerging that he was the victim of a well organized smear job by former members of the Obama staff.