The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: endicom on August 15, 2018, 01:16:56 pm
-
PJ Media
Tyler O'Neil
Aug. 14, 2018
In June, the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, issuing a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its "religious hostility" toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. Phillips had refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and the commission had compared his decision to religious arguments in favor of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism.
Now, the commission is again going after Phillips for declining to create a custom cake — this time a cake celebrating transgenderism. On Tuesday night, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian law firm that represented Phillips before the Supreme Court and helped him gain an important 7-2 victory, filed a federal lawsuit against the commission to forestall action against Phillips.
"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner declared in a statement. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him—something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."
More... https://pjmedia.com/faith/christian-baker-again-under-fire-for-refusing-transgender-cake-despite-supreme-court-win/
-
(https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/12/gettyimages-886497034.jpg?itok=4kub3yjY)
This Time For Not Baking A Cake Celebrating Transgender Transition
On Tuesday, according to The Daily Caller, Christian baker Jack Phillips -- who was recently handed a victory at the Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against him on the basis of religion by fining him for not baking a same-sex wedding cake -- filed a new lawsuit against the Civil Rights Commission. Why? Because the Civil Rights Commission has apparently issued a preliminary ruling penalizing him for not baking a gender transition celebration cake.
Yes, seriously.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34528/breaking-colorado-civil-rights-commission-comes-ben-shapiro (https://www.dailywire.com/news/34528/breaking-colorado-civil-rights-commission-comes-ben-shapiro)
-
The same transgender lawyer, Autumn Scardina, who is requesting the transgender transition cake, earlier tried to sue Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing to bake a Satanist cakes.
-
If the political Left should ever gain a fifth vote on the Supreme Court, it will not be long before states across the country – and perhaps a Democratic Congress – would crack down on individual religious businessowners in blatant violation of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of association, speech, and religion. Jack Phillips isn’t out of danger yet.
Amen.
-
The same transgender lawyer, Autumn Scardina, who is requesting the transgender transition cake, earlier tried to sue Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing to bake a Satanist cakes.
Yep, one depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo.
-
They're after him, aren't they? Poor guy. But, it looks like he's standing tough.
-
Threads merged
-
They're after him, aren't they? Poor guy. But, it looks like he's standing tough.
I don't see how it can be legal to target someone this way. He's being 'stalked' or whatever would be the proper term.
-
I don't see how it can be legal to target someone this way. He's being 'stalked' or whatever would be the proper term.
I agree! There has to be a legal remedy and his lawyers need to find and pursue it to the max!
-
The leftist mob are not going to let this man alone. 9999hair out0000
-
No, there isn't any legal remedy for this. Not really. He may file what is called a declaratory judgment action in federal court, but that's not really a remedy as much as it is asking the federal courts to rule on this issue. He also could file a case claiming that the state action in coming after him again itself is discriminatory, but I don't see that as winning. Fact is, the Supreme Court botched it.
This was very predictable because (presumably) Anthony Kennedy refused to sign on to a more broad ruling in the last case. The baker won the last case based on the reasoning that the Commission/process was biased, but that case did not say that he could refuse to bake the cake. The Court ducked that issue.
So, going after this guy again, or against someone else, was pretty much inevitable. The Commission this time will likely refrain from overt expressions of bias, so the next time the issue rises up on appeal, the core dispute of whether or not the baker can refuse to bake the cake will be presented more squarely. Again, that's unless he files a declaratory judgment action and a federal court agrees to take the case.
The risk in doing that is that some federal court of appeals could hold that the declaratory judgment action is not proper, and so toss the case out down the road without addressing the merits again.
-
No, there isn't any legal remedy for this. Not really. He may file what is called a declaratory judgment action in federal court, but that's not really a remedy as much as it is asking the federal courts to rule on this issue.
This was very predictable because (presumably) Anthony Kennedy refused to sign on to a more broad ruling in the last case. The baker won the last case based on the reasoning that the Commission/process was biased, but that case did not say that he could refuse to bake the cake. The Court ducked that issue.
So, going after this guy again, or against someone else, was pretty much inevitable. The Commission this time will likely refrain from overt expressions of bias, so the next time the issue rises up on appeal, the core dispute of whether or not the baker can refuse to bake the cake will be presented more squarely.
Thanks.
That leaves payback. Pay back in kind and twice as hard.
BTW, I'm not religious so I'm not in that sense taking sides.
-
One cannot buy or sell unless one thinks and acts like the Beast.
We are witnessing how Revelation 13:17 will work.
-
Thanks.
That leaves payback. Pay back in kind and twice as hard.
BTW, I'm not religious so I'm not in that sense taking sides.
Payback..... how, exactly?
-
This is the fault of the SCOTUS itself.
After they made their decision in favor of the Christian Baker, I thought it was a Pyrrhic Victory as they only addressed an issue related to THAT PARTICULAR CASE but did not make it a BASIC First Amendment related decision applicable to all religious businessmen.
So, this was inevitable given that the Supreme Court declined to address this issue head-on the first time around. Other than in the concurrence by Gorsuch and Alito, the Court focused on the Commission's overt anti-religious bias during the state hearing, not on the core issue of whether the baker had the first amendment right to refuse service. If the SCOTUS did that, it would have been applicable to ALL religious businesses --- Bakers, Florist, Photographers, Lodge Owners, etc.
So, someone filing a new Complaint/charge with the State of Colorado, and this issue coming up yet again, was predictable. This should already be a warning to every Christian businessman out there. The strategy of the alt-lifestyle leftists is to sue you into bankruptcy if they can't get their way.
I suspect this is Kennedy's fault. He probably was unwilling to join a broader ruling, so Roberts could only get a majority by limiting the decision to the issue of bias at the hearing.
The Supreme Court should settle this issue ONCE AND FOR ALL. NOW !!
-
The Supreme Court should settle this issue ONCE AND FOR ALL. NOW !!
Not . Gonna. Happen.
Speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms - are all subjects SCOTUS is never going to make definitive rulings on.
Not unless they seat 4 Ted Cruz/Alito -Originalist types on the bench and Thomas and Alito do not retire.
-
Not . Gonna. Happen.
Speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms - are all subjects SCOTUS is never going to make definitive rulings on.
Not unless they seat 4 Ted Cruz/Alito -Originalist types on the bench and Thomas and Alito do not retire.
Nah. Heller was a strong ruling. There are always going to be some edges that are not defined perfectly, but it was a very good decision.
The problem in the baker case was Kennedy. Most likely, there was a 4-4-1 split on the critical issue of principle, with Kennedy being the swing vote. Rather than deciding the issue either way, he basically punted by writing a very case-specific opinion.
But Kennedy is now gone, and I'd be willing to bet that Kavanaugh won't duck the issue when it comes up again.
-
Nah. Heller was a strong ruling. There are always going to be some edges that are not defined perfectly, but it was a very good decision.
The problem in the baker case was Kennedy. Most likely, there was a 4-4-1 split on the critical issue of principle, with Kennedy being the swing vote. Rather than deciding the issue either way, he basically punted by writing a very case-specific opinion.
But Kennedy is now gone, and I'd be willing to bet that Kavanaugh won't duck the issue when it comes up again.
Hope springs re: that... but, I'd feel a lot better about this kind of future decisions if we had another Scalia-type justice appointed.
-
Hope springs re: that... but, I'd feel a lot better about this kind of future decisions if we had another Scalia-type justice appointed.
Well...there just aren't all that many Scalia-types out there. But Kavanaugh is a pretty reliable textualist.
-
Payback..... how, exactly?
In kind. Start suing them for not accommodating Christians, straights, whatever.
-
In kind. Start suing them for not accommodating Christians, straights, whatever.
But suppose they do accommodate because they don't have any religious beliefs to be offended, or perhaps because they're willing to violate them to make a sale? You can only sue if they refuse.
-
In kind. Start suing them for not accommodating Christians, straights, whatever.
Start suing who? The bakers, photographers, business owners, etc.... that attempt to adhere to their religious beliefs? Or the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that is targeting them for doing so? I'm confused here. Please splain.
I don't see how further victimizing the business owners would rectify the situation.... it would only make things more fubared and more unfair. Right???
-
You would have thought that after getting their hands smacked once by the SCOTUS this Colorado Civil Rights Commission would have simply decided to not hear this case...since it's almost exactly the same charges that were rejected just a couple months ago.
Some people have to learn the hard way I guess.
-
Cakes have gender?
-
Cakes have gender?
Many, many of them. And, they're all fluid.
-
Many, many of them. And, they're all fluid.
Rum Cake!
-
You would have thought that after getting their hands smacked once by the SCOTUS this Colorado Civil Rights Commission would have simply decided to not hear this case...since it's almost exactly the same charges that were rejected just a couple months ago.
Some people have to learn the hard way I guess.
The June decision by SCOTUS was weak, and basically invited this exact same thing to happen again.
-
Sometimes you got to open your eyes and see reality and how your personal situation is impacted by it.
The best advice I could give Jack Phillips is to put a "closed" sign on the bake shop door.
Then go home, pack up, and move to Wyoming, Montana, Idaho or Utah.
Colorado ain't gonna leave him alone.
Get out of there, and out of Colorado's "reach"...
Or else... be prepared to GO BACK to the Supreme Court and get his case further adjudicated...
-
Sometimes you got to open your eyes and see reality and how your personal situation is impacted by it.
The best advice I could give Jack Phillips is to put a "closed" sign on the bake shop door.
Then go home, pack up, and move to Wyoming, Montana, Idaho or Utah.
Colorado ain't gonna leave him alone.
Get out of there, and out of Colorado's "reach"...
Or else... be prepared to GO BACK to the Supreme Court and get his case further adjudicated...
Or, stay in his home and his community and fight those SOBs with all he's got.
-
The key issue is not so much freedom of religion but the right of a business owner to create what products he or she wishes to make and not be forced to make something they do not want to make.
Again, the business owner is quite willing to sell their products that they choose to make/create to any buyer. This is not an issue of a business owner refusing to sell a customer their product.
If the leftists can force the cake baker to make these new ridiculous items, they can force any business owner to make whatever a customer asks for. Like the Satanist cake with the sexual objects on them. Clearly unconstitutional.
-
The key issue is not so much freedom of religion but the right of a business owner to create what products he or she wishes to make and not be forced to make something they do not want to make.
Again, the business owner is quite willing to sell their products that they choose to make/create to any buyer. This is not an issue of a business owner refusing to sell a customer their product.
If the leftists can force the cake baker to make these new ridiculous items, they can force any business owner to make whatever a customer asks for. Like the Satanist cake with the sexual objects on them. Clearly unconstitutional.
In the end, yes it is about the right to refuse to do business.
Every business transaction in a capitalist system is a voluntary exchange of goods.
This is ultimately attacking the 'voluntary' aspect.
-
The key issue is not so much freedom of religion but the right of a business owner to create what products he or she wishes to make and not be forced to make something they do not want to make.
Next thing you know, they will be forcing Willy Messerschmitt to build fighter jets.
Oh wait. . . .
-
The problem I have is the idea that no one can have a religious conviction that objects to something that goes against their beliefs. It essentially allows the state to then dictate morality based on what whims it has at the moment and pushed by those activists that use it as a vehicle to enforce their agenda.
It's even worse when you have this kind of biological fiction being imposed because someone feels they are this or that today, and wants to force a business to honor a fantasy totally unsupported by science.
Worse, the Colorado Civil Commission is known to give Muslims a pass while targeting Christians.
-
In the end, yes it is about the right to refuse to do business.
Every business transaction in a capitalist system is a voluntary exchange of goods.
This is ultimately attacking the 'voluntary' aspect.
@roamer_1
Spot on correct! as usual! :beer:
-
The June decision by SCOTUS was weak, and basically invited this exact same thing to happen again.
That's right. The SCOTUS decision was a punt, and virtually worthless, providing no guidance whatsoever on the interaction between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and the religious rights of shopowners. Another lawsuit was inevitable - and Jack Phillips likely knew it, since he never removed the statement on his website that his bakery is not now accepting custom orders for wedding cakes.
As for why the SCOTUS punted, it is likely the inability to get Justice Kennedy on board with a substantive ruling. And that may be just as well, because the case lacked the right facts to support a substantive ruling.
But I am on Jack Phillips side this time. In the case that went to the SCOTUS, he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, before even questioning his customer about the design or message on the cake. But the new kerfluffle doesn't involve a blanket denial of service - the baker objected to the message on the cake (blue icing on a pink cake, in order to promote the customer's message of transgenderism.) That's really no different from a Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it.
All that the public accommodation law requires is that a customer's business not be rejected merely for who he or she is. It does not compel a shopowner to produce a product with a message with which he disagrees. Jack Phillips was within his rights to refuse the customer's requested message on the cake. Indeed, it appears the customer chose Phillips' store because he/she knew the message would be provocative to him.
See the difference between the two incidents? To me, it's crucial. So my best wishes to Mr. Phillips and his attorneys as he fights the good fight for free speech.
-
Indeed, it appears the customer chose Phillips' store because he/she knew the message would be provocative to him.
Absolutely, the same lawyer first had him turn down a Satanic Cake but the lawsuit didn't go anywhere.
-
In the end, yes it is about the right to refuse to do business.
Every business transaction in a capitalist system is a voluntary exchange of goods.
This is ultimately attacking the 'voluntary' aspect.
But that isn't the issue here. The customer is trying to make a business person make a certain kind of product. The business owner has not refused to sell his wares to the customer. He has refused to make a certain kind of product for the customer.
-
That's right. The SCOTUS decision was a punt, and virtually worthless, providing no guidance whatsoever on the interaction between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and the religious rights of shopowners. Another lawsuit was inevitable - and Jack Phillips likely knew it, since he never removed the statement on his website that his bakery is not now accepting custom orders for wedding cakes.
As for why the SCOTUS punted, it is likely the inability to get Justice Kennedy on board with a substantive ruling. And that may be just as well, because the case lacked the right facts to support a substantive ruling.
But I am on Jack Phillips side this time. In the case that went to the SCOTUS, he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, before even questioning his customer about the design or message on the cake. But the new kerfluffle doesn't involve a blanket denial of service - the baker objected to the message on the cake (blue icing on a pink cake, in order to promote the customer's message of transgenderism.) That's really no different from a Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it.
All that the public accommodation law requires is that a customer's business not be rejected merely for who he or she is. It does not compel a shopowner to produce a product with a message with which he disagrees. Jack Phillips was within his rights to refuse the customer's requested message on the cake. Indeed, it appears the customer chose Phillips' store because he/she knew the message would be provocative to him.
See the difference between the two incidents? To me, it's crucial. So my best wishes to Mr. Phillips and his attorneys as he fights the good fight for free speech.
In both cases the medium is the message to twist McLuhan's phrase a tad.
Both you are wrong....both cases involve a customer demanding a business owner make a certain kind of product for them.
Where in the constitution does it give a customer the right to demand a business owner make a certain kind of product for him or her?
The baker wasn't refusing to bake the homosexual couple a cake. He was refusing to bake a certain kind of cake. It is no different than refusing to bake a Satanic cake. None.
No customer has the right to demand a business owner make a certain kind of product for them. The message on the product makes no difference.
It's a customer demanding a business owner make them a certain kind of product. Unconstitutional.
-
But that isn't the issue here. The customer is trying to make a business person make a certain kind of product. The business owner has not refused to sell his wares to the customer. He has refused to make a certain kind of product for the customer.
Yes, it is exactly the issue here. If every transaction is a voluntary exchange of goods, then necessarily that includes the right of non-participation, for any reason whatsoever.
If I don't like your socks and don't want to do business with you, that's perfectly fine.
The key is that it is voluntary. If it is not, it is not capitalism, and if it is not capitalism, we are no longer free. One of the hinge pins of liberty is that voluntary exchange.
-
No customer has the right to demand a business owner make a certain kind of product for them. The message on the product makes no difference.
It's a customer demanding a business owner make them a certain kind of product. Unconstitutional.
No, you're wrong. Phillips didn't have to make wedding cakes, but he chose to do so. Advertised the fact right on his website. That being his choice, he is obliged to abide by the community's nondiscrimination rules that require him to sell what he's advertised to provide to all comers, without regard to the race, gender or sexual orientation of the customer. Phillips refused service to his gay customer for the very product he advertised to provide, before having any discussion about the design or message on the cake . The design or message didn't matter - the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was. To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer.
But in the instant situation, the customer has asked for a specific design or message on the cake. Here, the situation of ARBITRARY discrimination is not, IMO, present. The baker can reject any design or message he deems offensive.
-
I agree! There has to be a legal remedy and his lawyers need to find and pursue it to the max!
The suing lawyer needs to be disbarred for harassment and frivolous lawsuits, and then someone needs to kick his @$$.
-
Actually, anti-discrimination law needs to be overturned, as it will only continue to be abused.
Let the market do what the market does.
-
The suing lawyer needs to be disbarred for harassment and frivolous lawsuits, and then someone needs to kick his @$$.
You are talking about the color of the frosting and not the inner cake.
(https://www.scardinalaw.com/design/images/Autumn-scardina.jpg)
-
No, you're wrong. Phillips didn't have to make wedding cakes, but he chose to do so. Advertised the fact right on his website. That being his choice, he is obliged to abide by the community's nondiscrimination rules that require him to sell what he's advertised to provide to all comers, without regard to the race, gender or sexual orientation of the customer. Phillips refused service to his gay customer for the very product he advertised to provide, before having any discussion about the design or message on the cake . The design or message didn't matter - the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was. To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer.
But in the instant situation, the customer has asked for a specific design or message on the cake. Here, the situation of ARBITRARY discrimination is not, IMO, present. The baker can reject any design or message he deems offensive.
Think of what you're saying. You're saying a business owner has the duty/obligation to make anything a customer demands.
Discrimination is practiced in every business as a business owner decides what they are going to make and sell. Nobody has the right to demand a business make them what they want. Nobody.
-
Think of what you're saying. You're saying a business owner has the duty/obligation to make anything a customer demands.
Discrimination is practiced in every business as a business owner decides what they are going to make and sell. Nobody has the right to demand a business make them what they want. Nobody.
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.
-
Think of what you're saying. You're saying a business owner has the duty/obligation to make anything a customer demands.
Discrimination is practiced in every business as a business owner decides what they are going to make and sell. Nobody has the right to demand a business make them what they want. Nobody.
Not at all. The rule is simple. Decide whether or not you'll make wedding cakes. if you don't, no problem - no one can demand that you do. But if you do decide to make wedding cakes, sell them to all customers on the same basis (that is, any wedding cake I make so long as the design or message isn't offensive).
IMO, Phillips originally violated the law when he refused service without even inquiring about the design or message on the cake. That's because his discrimination was arbitrary. But in the new scenario, I'll back his right to refuse to make any cake the design or message of which he deems offensive.
-
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.
Yup.
It's why I call him our resident Leftist and tyrant wannabe.
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.
A cake for a homosexual celebration IS a message in and of itself. And no one goes into a bakery to ask for a wedding cake without ideas for how it is to be decorated.
-
No, you're wrong. Phillips didn't have to make wedding cakes, but he chose to do so. Advertised the fact right on his website. That being his choice, he is obliged to abide by the community's nondiscrimination rules that require him to sell what he's advertised to provide to all comers, without regard to the race, gender or sexual orientation of the customer. Phillips refused service to his gay customer for the very product he advertised to provide, before having any discussion about the design or message on the cake . The design or message didn't matter - the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was. To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer.
But in the instant situation, the customer has asked for a specific design or message on the cake. Here, the situation of ARBITRARY discrimination is not, IMO, present. The baker can reject any design or message he deems offensive.
You'll say that until someone comes into your office and lets just pretend that you're a tax lawyer and they need a criminal defense lawyer.
You inform them you can't (you refuse) to take their case because you know tax law not criminal law.
They tell you "I don't care...I want YOU to be my lawyer".
You again tell them you can't (you refuse) take the case.
They leave and three days later a process server walks into your office and serves you with papers. You're being sued because you violated the 5th Amendment right to due process of law of the person you refused to represent...because you know...you're a tax lawyer and not a criminal court lawyer.
In your own words:
the refusal of service was solely and arbitrarily based on who the customer was. To me, that's textbook discrimination, and the Court should have so ruled in favor of the customer.
-
So I now have to bake a cake to celebrate someone cutting off their ding dong??
-
So I now have to bake a cake to celebrate someone cutting off their ding dong??
@kevindavis
Yes you do. Or you'll be sued and run out of business and your livelihood destroyed in the name of tolerance and acceptance.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.....
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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..... *****rollingeyes*****
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! 888high58888
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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! :police:
-
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 (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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
Boy, these discussions can sure get ridiculous.
The question:
What should Jack Phillips do?
Well, I see two options for him:
OPTION 1:
Fight back.
He's already got a countersuit going, but this is going to drag out and cost money.
A LOT of money.
How deep are his pockets?
And what if the Colorado court (in which he's suing) rules against him? Again?
Is he willing to climb all the way back to the U.S. Supreme Court -- assuming they'll grant him certiorari again?
Probable result:
I think his chances of winning (again) are very good, but it will be another long fight and cost a ton of cash. Enough to bankrupt him.
OPTION 2:
GET OUT OF COLORADO.
The response from some is going to be "why should he run? Why not fight for his rights?"
Fair enough.
But -- in the dividing, formerly "United" States of America, we are seeing two kinds of states emerge from the ongoing kulturkampf:
The "traditional freedom" states, where Constitutional rights (as such "rights" were understood by the generation of the founders) remain protected, as distinguished from...
... The "new slavery" states, where the rights of traditional-minded Americans are disrespected along with the culture from which such rights developed.
Of such new slavery states, Colorado is fast-becoming one of them.
Before I go further, let me ask:
Why did religious groups like the Puritans come to the New World, to begin with?
As I was taught (long ago), it was to escape religious persecution and to find a place where they could exercise their beliefs freely.
Would you say that -they- should have "stayed and fought?" Would you say that they were wrong for searching for "a better place"?
I think the Puritans made the right decision.
And this is how I would advise Jack Phillips.
Pack up his stuff while he's still got stuff left to pack.
Head for Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Idaho -- almost ANY of them will be a better choice then staying in a "Christian-hostile" state as Colorado is becoming.
Open up shop in one of those other places.
He has a reputation that will precede him, and I don't see any problems with re-establishing a decent business in a traditional-freedom state where he won't be persecuted for his personal beliefs.
It was for reasons exactly like Mr. Phillips that throngs of Euro-Christians came to America, be the persecution religious, ethnic, or otherwise.
There once was a time when ALL of America still nourished such beliefs.
That time IS NO MORE. It's over, and it ain't comin' back.
Even Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could see this.
In some ways, Mr. Phillips' story is the story of traditional-minded Euro-Americans in other states, as well. As America "divides", it's time for those who still cherish freedom to breathe deeply, take a good look around, and ask themselves "do I really belong where I am?"
Jack Phillips don't belong in Colorado no mo'.
Not because of who he is.
But because of what Colorado is becoming.
It's time for him to get out, and "find a better land".
He ain't the only one.