Christian Baker Again Under Fire for Refusing Transgender Cake Despite Supreme Court Win

[Jazzhead]

He's perfectly good and fine using government guns to force someone to make a product they do not offer and are not willing to create for homosexuals, then couches his tyranny inside of paper-thin justification that only 'the message on the cake' is an area where the business owner is able to refuse.

But the discrimination related to a product the baker DID offer, and indeed promoted as his specialty on his website.   A public accommodation cannot categorically refuse to serve a customer from its published menu of services solely because the customer is black, or Christian, or (in Colorado) gay.   What the baker can do is decline to create a design or message he deems offensive.   In the case that went to the SCOTUS,  Phillips categorically refused service, in the instant case he has been victimized by an ambulance chaser who deliberately provoked him to refuse to create a cake with an offensive message.   

If Mr. Phillips is willing to endure it,  the new case presents a fine subject for the Supreme Court to rule definitively on the interaction of free speech/religious liberty and the state's interest in prohibiting unlawful discrimination.    The SCOTUS was, in retrospect, wise to punt on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and wait until a more suitable set of facts emerged.  Perhaps that set of facts is this case. 

[Jazzhead]

Ignore him, he just says stuff like this to irritate people. He has done the same thing on half a dozen threads already this year.

Suit yourself.  But may the record show that I've never posted a thread on the subject of reluctant bakers or even, I believe, on the subject of religious freedom generally.    This is a discussion board, and from time to time I partake in the discussion.  Here, my point is that while Phillips may (IMO) have violated the law the first time around,  this time he's a victim, of an obnoxious lawyer keen to make a name for itself.   

[Sanguine]

@Jazzhead, in case you haven't figured it out yet, this topic is a loser for you.  Best just to not comment.  You're 180 from almost everyone here on this one.

[musiclady]

@Jazzhead, in case you haven't figured it out yet, this topic is a loser for you.  Best just to not comment.  You're 180 from almost everyone here on this one.

Even though he's a big time loser on this, I think his point is to aggravate and irritate, not to have civil "persuasive" conversations.....

[Jazzhead]

Even though he's a big time loser on this, I think his point is to aggravate and irritate, not to have civil "persuasive" conversations.....

What have I posted on this thread that is uncivil?

Do you really believe this board is better as an echo chamber?    On this subject,  I admit to being surprised at the continuing bitterness and name-calling.   I posted to state that, this time around, I agreed with the baker, and explained why I changed my position.   

But the hostility to dissenting opinions runs deep among many here, especially the "Christians".   I think that's a shame.  It bothers me especially when I see new members being hassled when they dare to disagree.   I think the strength of this board is that it consists of many different varieties of conservatives,  including  both religious warriors and those who have no fundamental issue with laws proscribing arbitrary discrimination against gays and others disfavored by religious warriors.     

[Wingnut]

@Jazzhead, in case you haven't figured it out yet, this topic is a loser for you.  Best just to not comment.  You're 180 from almost everyone here on this one.

I am shocked and chagrined, mortified and stupefied. This categorization of Jazzy is outrageous!  The man exhibits perfect pretzel logic.

[musiclady]

What have I posted on this thread that is uncivil?

Do you really believe this board is better as an echo chamber?    On this subject,  I admit to being surprised at the continuing bitterness and name-calling.   I posted to state that, this time around, I agreed with the baker, and explained why I changed my position.   

But the hostility to dissenting opinions runs deep among many here, especially the "Christians".   I think that's a shame.  It bothers me especially when I see new members being hassled when they dare to disagree.   I think the strength of this board is that it consists of many different varieties of conservatives,  including  both religious warriors and those who have no fundamental issue with laws proscribing arbitrary discrimination against gays and others disfavored by religious warriors.     

Once again, you misinterpret practically every word I said in order to continue your own propaganda campaign.

There is nothing in Scripture that calls Christians to be stupid, or to swallow leftist lies. (Quite the opposite, in fact).  So if you don't like your leftist views being countered by people on this forum, you should perhaps develop a thicker skin, or better yet, seek out truth yourself.

[TomSea]

@Jazzhead, in case you haven't figured it out yet, this topic is a loser for you.  Best just to not comment.  You're 180 from almost everyone here on this one.

I may not agree with what someone says, but I will fight to the death for their right to say it. That's the right to free speech.

[Sanguine]

I may not agree with what someone says, but I will fight to the death for their right to say it. That's the right to free speech.

And, what does that have to do with my comment, @TomSea?

[Free Vulcan]

But the discrimination related to a product the baker DID offer, and indeed promoted as his specialty on his website.   A public accommodation cannot categorically refuse to serve a customer from its published menu of services solely because the customer is black, or Christian, or (in Colorado) gay.   What the baker can do is decline to create a design or message he deems offensive.   In the case that went to the SCOTUS,  Phillips categorically refused service, in the instant case he has been victimized by an ambulance chaser who deliberately provoked him to refuse to create a cake with an offensive message.   

If Mr. Phillips is willing to endure it,  the new case presents a fine subject for the Supreme Court to rule definitively on the interaction of free speech/religious liberty and the state's interest in prohibiting unlawful discrimination.    The SCOTUS was, in retrospect, wise to punt on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and wait until a more suitable set of facts emerged.  Perhaps that set of facts is this case.

While I don't agree with the first part, I absolutely agree that in this instance that Mr. Phillips is on solid legal ground. So does the Colorado Civil Commission - if you're Muslim.

[INVAR]

A public accommodation cannot categorically refuse to serve a customer from its published menu of services solely because the customer is black, or Christian, or (in Colorado) gay.   What the baker can do is decline to create a design or message he deems offensive.   

I find it fascinating how much alike in you and Pocohantas Warren are in terms of how you view business in America. 

Public accommodations categorically refuse service on the basis of religion, politics and race every single day in this country - most of it to applause by people like you and the Left.

And as I said before, most wedding cakes are custom creations. 

If they wanted to buy an off-the-shelf cake with no decorations - they could've done so without so much as saying a word to the proprietor.  But that is not what happened.

They came in, wanted HOMOSEXUAL-themed wedding cake.  The owner refused and the imbecilic arguments of discrimination and the demand for punishment took place.

A business owner, like any other business owner - can decide to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.  The customer has the right to take his business elsewhere - to enterprises that WANT their money.

But that is not what you or the Left are interested in.  Forcing people at gunpoint to do as you demand and call it 'justice' is what you advocate.

Destroying businesses that will not serve as you demand they serve and create the way you demand they create is what you and Communists like Warren are all about.

[GrouchoTex]

So, how much does a pound cake weigh?

Never mind...

@Jazzhead, while I do see the logic in your argument, but at best, it would be a case of false advertisement, since, perhaps, the word "christian" wasn't included, or something to that effect?
I don't think you can call it discrimination, as we have found out, and was probably known then , that there would be several groups he would not bake a customized cake for.
The various people suing him are doing so as an entrapment, and, in my opinion, have been doing so since day one.
As I understand this, he had no trouble selling his off-the-shelf cakes to anyone.

[Jazzhead]

Once again, you misinterpret practically every word I said in order to continue your own propaganda campaign.

There is nothing in Scripture that calls Christians to be stupid, or to swallow leftist lies. (Quite the opposite, in fact).  So if you don't like your leftist views being countered by people on this forum, you should perhaps develop a thicker skin, or better yet, seek out truth yourself.

Why are my opinions a "propaganda campaign" but yours are not? 

I don't dislike my views being challenged, I welcome it.  That's because this is a political discussion board.   That's what we do here.   You prefer an echo chamber?   Then put me on ignore and be a good "stupid Christian".   

[Jazzhead]

So, how much does a pound cake weigh?

Never mind...

@Jazzhead, while I do see the logic in your argument, but at best, it would be a case of false advertisement, since, perhaps, the word "christian" wasn't included, or something to that effect?
I don't think you can call it discrimination, as we have found out, and was probably known then , that there would be several groups he would not bake a customized cake for.
The various people suing him are doing so as an entrapment, and, in my opinion, have been doing so since day one.
As I understand this, he had no trouble selling his off-the-shelf cakes to anyone.

Thanks, GT, for the substantive comment!    The latest clown is clearly seeking to entrap Mr. Phillips or drive him out of business.   No baker is obliged to make a custom cake with a design or message he deems offensive.  Otherwise a Jewish baker could be forced to decorate a cake with a swastika.

But the original claim - the one that went to the SCOTUS - was IMO legit.   You cannot advertise that you sell wedding cakes and then categorically refuse to provide one to a customer based only on who the customer is.   Remember, Mr. Phillips had, according to the record, no conversation with the customer regarding the design or message on the cake.  He just wouldn't provide one to a gay customer, period.
 

[Jazzhead]

They came in, wanted HOMOSEXUAL-themed wedding cake. 

There is no evidence on the record of that.  There was no discussion of the design or message on the cake.   

[Wingnut]

There is no evidence on the record of that.  There was no discussion of the design or message on the cake.

Well isn't that stylish.


Maybe it is just me but  after the earlier request was made of him to design a cake with Satan licking a nine inch functional dildo.... the cat was kinda out of the bag don't ya think?

[musiclady]

Why are my opinions a "propaganda campaign" but yours are not? 

I don't dislike my views being challenged, I welcome it.  That's because this is a political discussion board.   That's what we do here.   You prefer an echo chamber?   Then put me on ignore and be a good "stupid Christian".   

Actually, Scripture can only be called "propaganda" if you don't believe that it's God's word.  Pretty telling if you think it isn't and is only propaganda.

I don't want an echo chamber at all.  I LOVE to debate with you because you're so strikingly illogical (as are all social leftists) that it's easy to counter your posts with reality.

I wouldn't put you on Ignore for anything, but it again is interesting that you realize that your views are non-Christian and that those of us who don't agree with them prefer being "stupid Christians" to being enlightened non-Christians as you are..... 

I just find it interesting and kind of sad that you keep arguing with people who are more well informed and more fact based than you are.

You do provide a good leftist foil for social issues here, though, so I appreciate how we can all hone our debate skills with your cut and paste lines.

So, thanks!  No echo chamber for me! 

[INVAR]

There is no evidence on the record of that.  There was no discussion of the design or message on the cake.

Wrong.

When it was stated that the cake to be designed was for a homosexual ceremony, the owner declined to design one and offered off-the-shelf baked goods instead.

They refused and took him to court - as they intended to do from the beginning to make an example.

Phillips' Christianity was and is well known - and that is what they targeted from the beginning.

[Jazzhead]

Well isn't that stylish.


Maybe it is just me but  after the earlier request was made of him to design a cake with Satan licking a nine inch functional dildo.... the cat was kinda out of the bag don't ya think?

That's the guy/girl who has made the most recent charge against the baker.   I was referring to the original claim, the one that made it to the Supreme Court.    There,  service was refused to a gay customer with no discussion of the design or message on the cake.   

[Jazzhead]

I don't want an echo chamber at all.  I LOVE to debate with you because you're so strikingly illogical (as are all social leftists) that it's easy to counter your posts with reality.

Care to explain how the statements I've made on this thread are "illogical"?  You've got to do better than just labeling and name-calling.   

[mountaineer]

So I now have to bake a cake to celebrate someone cutting off their ding dong??

I've done some cake decorating in my day and wonder what such a cake would feature - an amputated male member? What's to celebrate, exactly?

[Wingnut]

That's the guy/girl who has made the most recent charge against the baker.   I was referring to the original claim, the one that made it to the Supreme Court.    There,  service was refused to a gay customer with no discussion of the design or message on the cake.

Oh.   Carry on then.  I thought we were trying to be current! 

[txradioguy]

This latest crusade against Jack began while the first was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 26, 2017, the very day that the Supreme Court agreed to review Masterpiece, a Colorado attorney called Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested a custom cake with a blue exterior and pink interior in order to celebrate a gender transition from male to female.

If you are even remotely acquainted with the Masterpiece case, you can predict what happened next. Jack's shop declined the request, because while he will serve all people, he will not create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that violate his beliefs. Incidentally, it is safe to assume that the attorney was aware of Jack's beliefs since the attorney "take great pride" in suing businesses that allegedly "discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and serving them their just desserts."


http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/402114-colorado-end-your-crusade-against-masterpiece-cakeshop


In the first case...despite what some people here falsely claim...thr type of cake WAS discussed and refused by the baker to be made for the stated reasons and that the SCOTUS agreed with in their decision.

As the article clearly states this bit of malicious lawyering was plotted planned and executed by a slip and fall ambulance chaser who admits he uses his law degree to punish businesses and business owners for not bending to the will of the progressive agenda.

And just like with the first case this was a setup to force someone to violate their First Amendment rights.

[musiclady]

Care to explain how the statements I've made on this thread are "illogical"?  You've got to do better than just labeling and name-calling.

How did you make the (illogical) leap from my calling your posts illogical to my wanting an "echo chamber" and wanting to be a "stupid Christian?"

Half of what you say makes no sense in a logical world.

You make gigantic leaps all the time to try to make your points.

I call that illogical.

(Or would you prefer if I called your posts "irrational?"........... which btw, is not name-calling.  I'm talking about your posts).

[thackney]

Thanks, GT, for the substantive comment!    The latest clown is clearly seeking to entrap Mr. Phillips or drive him out of business.   No baker is obliged to make a custom cake with a design or message he deems offensive.  Otherwise a Jewish baker could be forced to decorate a cake with a swastika.

But the original claim - the one that went to the SCOTUS - was IMO legit.   You cannot advertise that you sell wedding cakes and then categorically refuse to provide one to a customer based only on who the customer is.   Remember, Mr. Phillips had, according to the record, no conversation with the customer regarding the design or message on the cake.  He just wouldn't provide one to a gay customer, period.

I still say, since at the time homosexual marriage was illegal in his state, he had legal standing.

How can the state Sue for not accommodating that which they call illegal?