What the Constitution says about cakes and compelled speech.

[Frank Cannon]

But those aren't the facts.   Phillips' customers didn't get a chance to even discuss the design or message on the cake.   They were refused service because they were gay.   In violation of the law.   

That's a lie. Philips offered to make them any other sort of cake they wanted for any other occasion. He just refused to do a Rainbow cake that they requested, so yes. It was discussed.

Phillips said he couldn’t design a custom wedding cake for two men who requested it. He declined because using his artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex marriage would violate his Christian faith and his artistic freedom.

The two men then filed a lawsuit against him. But contrary to what they allege, Phillips didn’t discriminate against them. While he can’t create cakes that celebrate what his faith prohibits, he offered to sell the men anything else in his shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion. He serves all people, but can’t express all messages or celebrate all events.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/04/why-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-could-bring-major-supreme-court-ruling-on-free-expression.html

[Oceander]

The baker will lose

[Jazzhead]

That's a lie.

No, it's not.  Phillips never had any discussion with the customers regarding the design or message on the wedding cake.   The only reason for his refusal was who his customers were.   Why should a gay customer be able to get brownies but not a wedding cake?     

[skeeter]

No, it's not.  Phillips never had any discussion with the customers regarding the design or message on the wedding cake.   The only reason for his refusal was who his customers were.   Why should a gay customer be able to get brownies but not a wedding cake?     

You're reading right off the prosecution's brief. How about looking at some other testimony for a change?

[Cyber Liberty]

But those aren't the facts.   Phillips' customers didn't get a chance to even discuss the design or message on the cake.   They were refused service because they were gay.   In violation of the law.   

You keep saying that the alleged customers were denied without discussion.  Is there a recording of the business negotiation?  Considering these "customers" were gunning for Phillips in order to destroy him in a classic sting operation, it seems to me there should be a video, in living color and time/date stamps.

It's a pretty sloppy sting operation if there isn't.  Or...what they did get doesn't support their case so it's "forgotten." 

[Cyber Liberty]

You're reading right off the prosecution's brief. How about looking at some other testimony for a change?

It might weaken his religion-bashing.

[Frank Cannon]

No, it's not.  Phillips never had any discussion with the customers regarding the design or message on the wedding cake.   The only reason for his refusal was who his customers were.   Why should a gay customer be able to get brownies but not a wedding cake?     

You are basing that off of what? Were the two customers running around in dresses throwing glitter and that is how he figured they were gay? Utter bullshit and you know it. They had to have the discussion for Phillips to find out A) they were gay and B) they wanted a wedding cake.

[Frank Cannon]

You're reading right off the prosecution's brief. How about looking at some other testimony for a change?

Is that the same prosecutor that tried this case by shoehorning it into a racial discrimination law and did such a poor job it landed on the Supremes desk?

[Jazzhead]

You're reading right off the prosecution's brief. How about looking at some other testimony for a change?

What testimony would you like considered here?    Does Phillips contend he discussed the particulars of the cake's design/message?   

[Frank Cannon]

What testimony would you like considered here?    Does Phillips contend he discussed the particulars of the cake's design/message?   

I posted the link where he does in a post above. Too lazy to look into this case any further than your Leftist bias will allow?

[driftdiver]

No, it's not.  Phillips never had any discussion with the customers regarding the design or message on the wedding cake.   The only reason for his refusal was who his customers were.   Why should a gay customer be able to get brownies but not a wedding cake?     

ummm, why would he talk design of a wedding case for a gay marriage when he doesnt do wedding cakes for gay marraiges

No he offered other products but really who cares.   His problem was he was honest about it.   The second problem is these azzholes targeted him to further the homesexual agenda.  just like they always do, using govt power to force acceptance.

[Jazzhead]

You are basing that off of what? Were the two customers running around in dresses throwing glitter and that is how he figured they were gay? Utter bullshit and you know it. They had to have the discussion for Phillips to find out A) they were gay and B) they wanted a wedding cake.

Fact #1:  Wedding cakes is a product he advertised to sell to the general public.  Fact #2:  The law says he cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.   The only defense that Phillips has is that his customers wanted him to craft a design he found offensive.  But the particulars of the cake's design or message was never discussed. 

The Colorado Supreme Court found he'd violated the law -  so why do you say "utter bullshit and I know it"?     

[INVAR]

Not anymore.  Check out his website - he doesn't do custom orders for wedding cakes. 

He once did and made his mark by doing so.  But, if one does not receive the Mark of the Homosexual Beast - one cannot conduct his business in the manner he once did. 

We know how proud you are of being able to destroy "bigots" you have vowed to help "punish".

Using "bullshit" multiple times doesn't improve your posts, just makes 'em appear more childish.

I can give complete scatology and bovine excrement about what you think is childish or not.  Bullies like you that are cowards hiding behind the courts to impose your will only understand the brunt end of things.   

The facts are before the Court and it will soon render its decision.

I can care less what it renders.  I will not comply with any rule court or a government makes that contravenes the Word of God.

It will be refused and resisted by all means necessary.

[Jazzhead]

ummm, why would he talk design of a wedding case for a gay marriage when he doesnt do wedding cakes for gay marriages

Exactly.   That's why I think the SCOTUS took the case - it's a clear case of discrimination in violation of the law.   Because there was no qualifier in his advertising that he only made cakes for weddings his religion approved of.   

[INVAR]

Fact #1:  Wedding cakes is a product he advertised to sell to the general public. 

Weddings or Holy Matrimony only applies to a single man and a single woman.  Period.  End of sentence. Wedding Cakes therefore only apply to that construct.  When Phillips began his business that was the ONLY definition and understanding that had existed for millennia.  Just because an aberrant court decided to redefine an entire covenant and construct of civilization does not mean we all have to reorganize our lives to comply with that outright bullshit.

There is no such thing as a homosexual "wedding" I have to acknowledge in my business, and I refuse to do so.

We do not care that some court has decided to pervert the definition to accommodate wicked behavior as some kind of right that everyone must acknowledge as wholesome and good.  It is not.  It is wholly evil and a perversion of nature and of the Laws of nature's God. 

We refuse to consider two homosexuals as being able to wed, regardless what the courts or your government decree, much less what pervert advocates such as yourself scream about on public forums.

It will be interesting to see how many people are willing to risk their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to resist that imposition of tyranny.

But I can promise you - I will be one.

[driftdiver]

Exactly.   That's why I think the SCOTUS took the case - it's a clear case of discrimination in violation of the law.   Because there was no qualifier in his advertising that he only made cakes for weddings his religion approved of.

As usually gays only care about themselves.   they dont care what pain or expense they cause upon society.

but lets take your theory to its logical extent.   If I offer ANYTHING then ANYONE can demand I provide it for them and basically dictate the pricing as well.   Regardless of whether I have capacity to produce it, skills to produce it, or even if I lose money producing it.

Meanwhile demands for special treatment continue unabated.

[Free Vulcan]

The author's arguments are all well and good, except he missed the key fact -  Phillips runs his cakeshop to make money.   Phillips sells wedding cakes to make money.  As such, he is subject to the rules of the community, including that he not unlawfully discriminate with respect to his customers.   

If I see the sign on Phillips' shop that says he sells wedding cakes,  then I should be able to buy one whether I'm white or black, Catholic or Muslim, gay or straight.  Remember that Phillips refused service without any discussion whatsoever regarding the design or message on the cake.   His customers were rejected solely because of who they were.   

What you state is legal fiction, and fiction in general, driven by your inconsistent morality - a violation of Separation of Church and State - that promotes LGBTQ 'rights' while telling another that they can't date legally available women if they're a little too young, but still legal.

[INVAR]

What you state is legal fiction, and fiction in general, driven by your inconsistent morality - a violation of Separation of Church and State - that promotes LGBTQ 'rights' while telling another that they can't date legally available women if they're a little too young, but still legal.

We've already had those notations of hypocrisy and stupidity, but he keeps quadrupling down on them as if one of these days, all his inconsistent and bogus reasoning is going to persuade anyone here on this board to his views.

[Jazzhead]

What you state is legal fiction, and fiction in general, driven by your inconsistent morality - a violation of Separation of Church and State - that promotes LGBTQ 'rights' while telling another that they can't date legally available women if they're a little too young, but still legal.

What "inconsistent morality"?   Do you criticize what Kevin Spacey did?  If so, then why not Roy Moore?   THAT would be an example of "inconsistent morality".  And the immorality of Spacey and Moore -skeevy perverts both - is no reason to oppose the right of adult gays and lesbians to marry under the civil law.     

[Jazzhead]

As usually gays only care about themselves.   they dont care what pain or expense they cause upon society.

but lets take your theory to its logical extent.   If I offer ANYTHING then ANYONE can demand I provide it for them and basically dictate the pricing as well.   Regardless of whether I have capacity to produce it, skills to produce it, or even if I lose money producing it.

Meanwhile demands for special treatment continue unabated.

This is too stupid an argument to merit a substantive response.   

[INVAR]

What "inconsistent morality"?   Do you criticize what Kevin Spacey did?  If so, then why not Roy Moore?

Silly and stupid attempt at deflecting the hypocrisy you spew.  One has uncontested allegations of sex abuse, the other has proven bogus allegations by political hacks attempting to toss an election to the Democrat.  Not even applicable to the notation that your 'morality' of deciding what is and is not 'moral' in your perverted estimation is decidedly twisted.

And the immorality of Spacey and Moore -skeevy perverts both - is no reason to oppose the right of adult gays and lesbians to marry under the civil law.   

When your precious SCOTUS decides that 'consent' grants an adult the right to have sex with children, thus becoming 'law', I'm sure your argumentation will reflect the supremacy of the rule of Judicial fiat over whatever parades as your moral compass at any given moment.

This is too stupid an argument to merit a substantive response.   

We do not ever expect substantive responses from you.

Only Leftist/hedonist bullshit.

[Smokin Joe]

Weddings or Holy Matrimony only applies to a single man and a single woman.  Period.  End of sentence. Wedding Cakes therefore only apply to that construct.  When Phillips began his business that was the ONLY definition and understanding that had existed for millennia.  Just because an aberrant court decided to redefine an entire covenant and construct of civilization does not mean we all have to reorganize our lives to comply with that outright bullshit.

There is no such thing as a homosexual "wedding" I have to acknowledge in my business, and I refuse to do so.

We do not care that some court has decided to pervert the definition to accommodate wicked behavior as some kind of right that everyone must acknowledge as wholesome and good.  It is not.  It is wholly evil and a perversion of nature and of the Laws of nature's God. 

We refuse to consider two homosexuals as being able to wed, regardless what the courts or your government decree, much less what pervert advocates such as yourself scream about on public forums.

It will be interesting to see how many people are willing to risk their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to resist that imposition of tyranny.

But I can promise you - I will be one.

Colorado law did not recognize same-sex "marriage" at the time the incident occurred. Legally, the baker might as well have refused to create a cake for someone marrying their pet duck. Both "marriages" were of equal legal weight in the State: void; not recognized under the law.

How can you discriminate by refusing to produce a product commemorating an allegedly solemn occasion that is not recognized by law? Having a religious objection to that is just the icing on that legal cake.

BTW, even the Military has a category called "Conscientious objector" for conscripts who refuse, for religious reasons to carry a weapon in combat.

[Smokin Joe]

What "inconsistent morality"?   Do you criticize what Kevin Spacey did?  If so, then why not Roy Moore?   THAT would be an example of "inconsistent morality".  And the immorality of Spacey and Moore -skeevy perverts both - is no reason to oppose the right of adult gays and lesbians to marry under the civil law.   

For starters, Spacey admits it.

Moore denies any wrongdoing, and there are still only three who have asserted he did anything illegal. Those assertions are full of holes, too.

[INVAR]

For starters, Spacey admits it.

Moore denies any wrongdoing, and there are still only three who have asserted he did anything illegal. Those assertions are full of holes, too.

Facts don't fit the Narrative Joe.

It's the narrative that matters above all.

[Smokin Joe]

Facts don't fit the Narrative Joe.

It's the narrative that matters above all.

Been seeing a lot of that lately. Must be a new generation of engritsch majeures and urinalists out there.