Will They Ever Leave Him Alone? Christian Baker Jack Phillips Is Being Sued—Again
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Remember Jack Phillips, the Christian baker from Colorado who was sued for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding? He's being sued again, for the third time, by the same lawyer who tried and failed to take him down last time.
Attorneys for a Denver woman greased the pan for yet another legal battle against a Lakewood bakery already burned around the edges from a series of heated civil rights fights. Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused in 2012 to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple from Denver, on the basis of his religious beliefs...
The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Denver District Court on behalf of Autumn Scardina by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh...
The newest lawsuit claims Phillips discriminated against Scardina and used deceptive and unfair trade practices.
Now, this is not exactly a life-or-death situation. Nobody is in danger of having anything hurt but their feelings. The guy makes cakes. He's not the only baker in Denver. Hell, he's not even the only baker on his block . But Autumn Scardina can't just go to another bakery, because this isn't about purchasing a cake. It's about persecuting a man for his religious beliefs. It's not about promoting tolerance. It's about punishing dissenters.
Phillips isn't running around with a baseball bat, busting up gay weddings and gender-transition parties. He's not stopping any of these folks from living their own lives. He's just refusing to participate. What's gained by forcing him?
I'll never understand why lefties keep demanding food from people who don't want to make it for them. Are they going to sue if it doesn't taste good?
A few years ago, that big meanie Steven Crowder did a little experiment. If it's such a big deal that a Christian baker won't make a cake for a gay wedding, what happens when you try it with a Muslim bakery?
That was back in 2015. None of the libs who demand compliance from Christian bakers had any problem with Muslim bakers committing the same hate crime.
And now, the same people who insist against Jack Phillips' right to refuse service are condemning YouTube for refusing to ban Crowder. Businesses have the right to make these decisions for themselves, except when they don't.
That's the great thing about authoritarianism. You don't need principles when you can just silence anybody who disagrees with you. Hypocrisy is... well, it's baked into the cake.
Tags
Who is online
231 visitors
Don't really know this Phillips dude, but have a nagging feeling he is just another one of those [ faux convenience so called small 'c' christians ] taking advantage of a non-sensical issue to fill a personal hole in his personal self.
Phillips has served the area for over twenty years and apparently does well. Why doesn't he just do his best for everybody, go home at night like everyone else and be thankful for what he can do for people and what his customers have done for him. This is not that complicated.
This nation has too many grandstanders. Thank you conservatives for picking at societal wounds and inflicting more wounds at every opportunity.
Doncha know, it's the elusive 11th commandment. Thou shall not bake for homosexuals.
Hilarious!
Always a classic
Oh, yes, now, that you mentioned it, I do remember that this is the 12 Commandment, right after the one allowing Lot to have sex with his daughters.
Yet in all my time on this Earth, I have never seen even one public stoning. Why is that Xx?
You don't live in a Muslim country.
We're not talking about a Muslim country ARE we Buzz.
My reply was about the seeder stating that the bible citing sins and price paid for them. Perhaps the seeder would support that the US follow the policy of the Muslim country that your link show. His bible certainly does, as does the Torah.
BTW, you live in a country that would only allow Phillips to 'practice' his religion in state authorized venues and since he's a Baptist, Phillips' religion isn't sanctioned.
The idea of sin is irrelevant in the secular law because the bible is not part of US law. He cannot try to use his business to force his customers to live by his religious beliefs and/or deny them service in a public business for that reason. His religious beliefs apply to him only.
Or ancient Israel...
"18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." - Deuteronomy 21:18-21
But the point is, we don't live under any theocracy, we don't live by biblical law. The constitution is our law, the bible is immaterial to it and carries zero weight when it comes to our secular laws. There is no such thing as "sin" in US law, there are only legal or illegal actions being carefully defined. This baker is not being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, he can choose to stop selling wedding cakes if his conscience won't let him sell them to every law abiding tax paying citizen regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. He can become a private wedding cake business which requires you to become a member to order cakes from him and isn't open to the general public. Then he can discriminate against anyone he wants, black, Muslim, gay, trans, he could deny all of them a membership. In fact in his membership charter he can just let you know up front none of those persons will be allowed. That's his right as an American.
But as soon as he goes and gets a public business license and agrees to abide by Federal, State and local laws when operating his open to the public business, he is then subject to State accommodation laws. If he feels it's a sin to serve certain law abiding tax paying American citizens then he should try some other line of work.
I didn't think we were talking about ancient history. As well, I have travelled in many countries in my lifetime - about 17 in fact, in North America and surrounding islands, Europe, North Africa, Middle East and now in Asia, but I am a Canadian and will never give up the fact that Canada is my country. The fact that I am presently in China doesn't mean I give a shit about what religions are practised or permitted there because I don't even practise my own religion. Besides, I was addressing YOUR statement that you never saw one stoning so don't bother to deflect and diffuse.
You too. I only addressed Dulay's comment that he had never seen a public stoning. I was not talking about ancient history so forget the bible verses.
No Buzz, we're talking about religious based practices and WHAT they are based on.
You're the one that brought up where I LIVE Buzz.
So you don't care about religious laws where you LIVE but you do care about them in 'Muslim countries'. Got ya.
No deflection or diffusion at all in my comment Buzz. Though I did cogently addressed YOURS.
Which was in direct reply to the seeders comment that the bible records 'the price paid for' sin.
Yet the seeder insists that the ancient text that contains them is on topic so THAT'S what we're talking about Buzz. DO try to keep up...
You accuse the baker of grandstanding by sticking to his values and principles and think that he should just give in to the wishes of those he does not wish to serve but do not say anything about the lawyers that filed the suit even though they lost two others or the plaintiff who obviously knew of his stand and went to his bakery anyway. Are there no other bakeries in all of Colorado?
His customers aren't asking for his personal or religious approval because they just do not care. He bakes cakes and they want to buy one. It is a very simple transaction for money.
He'll bake a cake for anyone. However, he won't decorate it with certain themes.
He declined a wedding cake several years for two lesbians. Every case since has been a set up, especially the one that caused the Supreme Court decision.
He's not going to change his religious beliefs to make the gay community happy, so they should quit harassing him
His customers aren't asking him to change his beliefs because they don't care about them. The law says that he must serve them equally, so unless he can prove that the cake was to be offensive decorated, he doesn't have a legally defensible claim. Being a bigot doesn't get you a pass from secular law.
He has the right to print religious imagery and Bible passages on his packaging, or dress as the Pope as he bakes the cake, but he doesn't have the right to deny them equal service because of his religious beliefs.
That's false.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. The two gay guys from the East Coast flew into DIA, which abut 30 miles NE of Denver, and found their way to Jack's shop, which is about 20 miles SW of the downtown Denver. This was not a coincidence, but a set up from the start from the unhappy gay "community" trying to run someone out of business.
Why else is all this piling on gone on since that is occurring? Harrassment? Punishment? Any decent judge is going to throw this invalid case out of court. No way will the tran person prevail. All the butt hurt gays need to move on and find another victim.
Yet you proceed to spew a total load of bullshit. I can't help but wonder why so many here at NT are so quick to spew the bullshit that they read in their bubble but refuse to pursue the minimum facts needed to speak cogently about a well documented event.
BTFW Greg, I READ the fucking court documents.
They are from Colorado Greg.
FAIL
Phillip's bakery was recommended by the reception planner.
Your claim is utter bullshit.
Because the fucker keeps discriminating against people.
I haven't read about the current case. Unlike you, I'll wait until I know the facts before I comment on it's validity.
Racists tried that argument to keep from having to serve blacks. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
It's a totally bigoted stance - "they can always go to another baker" and was overruled in Loving vs. VA
They made an argument on religious grounds? I never heard that. As far as I know racists were always openly racists, never to be confused with any arguments based on any moral convictions.
Racists thought they had moral convictions, just as bigots do.
And many of them used the story of Ham in the bible to justify their conviction that black people are inferior to white people.
But I think you know quite well that what I was referring to was the "they can always go to another baker" argument, pretending that it's equal treatment and is not discrimination.
That is exactly what Maurice Bessinger did. The federal courts didn't but that racist argument then.
Read more here:
I never heard that.
But I think you know quite well that what I was referring to was the "they can always go to another baker" argument, pretending that it's equal treatment and is not discrimination.
Actually, I didn't. That of course is a whole different argument. I took you too literally
Bessinger was off his rocker
Maurice Bessinger is no different than Jack Phillips. They both attend Baptist churches.
Oh, there it is....that's the link
Once someone believes that slaves were blessed to be slaves, it's time to place a call to Bellevue!
Why? He based his discrimination on the same book that Phillips bases his.
Ironically, neither the Federal or state RFRAs require that someone claiming a 'closely held religious belief' has to have a foundation for that belief. In short, they can just make shit up off the top of their heads.
BTW, the opinion in the Bessinger case stated:
Colorado includes sexual orientation in their non-discrimination statute.
In what way Xx? He based his discrimination on the same book Phillips bases his.
Are you really going to try and make that case? Simply to try and contradict everything I say?
Ok, show me were the Bible or the Baptist denomination says "Slaves are blessed to be slaves".......I want to see those specific words!
This may take a while
My argument is that the RECORD of the opinion on his case makes the case. Since I prefer to be informed about what I post, I read both of the opinions today. You should try it...
I asked you a question which BTFW, you didn't answer. Instead you're whining. If the FACTS contradict what you said, don't blame me, I merely post them.
The 'slaves' sign wasn't part of the court case and wasn't cited in either of the opinions. Bessinger cited his interpretation of biblical teachings which he claimed demanded that he deny African Americans service. READ the opinions which includes the finding of facts.
Bessinger made the SAME type of argument that Phillips is making.
So why do you say that Bessinger was off his rocket while supporting Phillips argument?
Posting fact based comments sometimes do...
That's why it's frustrating that some seeders lock their seeds after they get the last word.
So you can't back up that outrageous anti-religious claim?
Done!
I've given you the last word more often than not, but as I stated last night, there is just so much leeway I can give to someone who has defended the McClatchy report, which made an outrageous unverified claim about Cohen being in Prague (Now totally disproven by both testimony and the Mueller Report) and the longstanding attempt to pretend the Steele Dossier was credible.
A raucous argument devoid of proof dosen't cut it.
So you can't refute that Bessinger used the same argument that Phillips is using. CAN you Vic?
Here's part of the comment you replied to:
Is THAT an 'anit-religious claim' Vic? THAT is the argument that Bessinger made in court and THAT is the argument that I am addressing since the topic of the seed is about a court suit.
Long ago.
Yet you just posted one. You failed to provide any proof then and you fail to provide proof now.
The hypocrisy of your comment is galactic.
The idea that he believed that people were blessed to be slaves is no crazier than many other parts of the Bible.
Exactly. Refusing to serve black Americans barbeque because you believe they're cursed or unclean in the bible is no crazier than refusing to serve gay Americans wedding cake because you believe they're cursed or unclean in the bible.
Most rational people would look at the Bible as absurd fiction if they had not been exposed to it as a child or that commonly believed as a common social construct.
I know the baker wants to be live and let live on this, and I would support that, but if everyone else in town felt the same way, they couldn't just go to another bakery. And right now, maybe they do feel that way but only the law is making them cooperative. That was the situation with black people and it's why we needed the Civil Rights Act. Over time, most businesses have come to realize that the change has been a good thing.
So then the question becomes whether or not creating and selling a wedding cake rises to the level of public accommodation. And if it does, can it meet some kind of exception, like free expression or free exercise. One of these days, we'll see the right case and maybe the courts will decide.
I do think hunting down people and setting them up for law suits, rather than developing a case from a genuinely victimized plaintiff only hurts the cause. It doesn't make LGBT couples look sympathetic. It makes them look like bullies. Such tactics only entrench the resistance. They don't change hearts and minds.
The SCOTUS left a very strong message when they decided this case on a narrow context.
Nobody is asking the baker to approve of his clients behavior or to give his religious endorsement when he bakes a cake or anything else. His approval is neither sought or desired.
It is if he is asked to put any wording, images, etc on the cake that violate his religious beliefs; or is required to have the cake delivered to or cater a gay wedding that is exactly what they are doing.
No one has accused him of not selling regular goods to LGBT's; just not wedding cakes. The SCOTUS already ruled in favor of the baker, this is now just repetitive targeting.
No one is required to buy any goods from this bakery. They should organize a boycott and run the bakery out of business- they have had more than enough time by now. Or, maybe the bakery is just too popular for them to do it?
All the indignities are being thrust on Phillips, since all these visits to his store were planned with malice ahead of time.
I agree with their messages of tolerance and dignity. However, they still haven't resolved the core issues in cases like this. They're clearly waiting for the right case or cases. What they typically prefer is to have similar cases with different ruling from different circuits, so that a split of authority sort of compels them to resolve the issue. Additionally, the published opinions in those cases serve as helpful arguments for the opposing sides.
Actually what they ruled was they found bias in the system. Not necessarily for the baker himself.
Where is the evidence that he was asked to decorate the wedding cake in any sexualiized manner?
The law says that all people must be treated equally in a public business so if he sells wedding cakes to anyone then he must also sell them to LGBT couples equally. Just because a wedding cake is a custom order doesn't mean that Jack Phillips can deny to sell them to a chosen customer demographic because of his religious bigotry.
If he doesn't like being forced to sell wedding cakes to all people them the state gives him the recourse to stop selling wedding cakes to everyone. He can also make the business a private members-only establishment where he can pick and choose who can enter.
Maurice Bessinger said the same thing when black/interracial people tried to patronize his BBQ joint in the 1960s. The SCOTUS told him that he didn't have the right to deny them equal service because of his bigoted religious beliefs.
Where did Jesus teach his followers to act in this manner, if they claim this is a religious belief?
Bullshit.
If he was required to put two men, or two women, at the top of the cake; required to do lettered icing with two men or two women name; required to deliver the cake to a LGBT wedding; or cater the wedding.
If it were a standardized wedding cake that anyone could purchase, without any specializations, and that the customer picked up from the store themselves to deliver to the function themselves you would be right. Of course no one is accusing him of not selling standardized goods to LGBT.
You are almost too funny. So cancel what probably is his top profit maker; or stop selling to the public his day to day goods that keep his business running.
There is no evidence of any of that.
That isn't true. Phillips refuses to produce a wedding cake of ANY kind for a 'same sex' wedding.
It's not funny, it's the only non-discriminatory sollution.
The cake toppers are the choice of the customer because it would be foolish for the baker to have to buy and stock them. They are not put on until the cake is assembled at the reception hall. Most couples do not use them because they are tacky.
There is no such thing as a standardized wedding cake. They are all custom orders. He cannot deny people that custom order because of his conservative religious beliefs unless he has proof that what they are asking for is obscene by social mores. What cake decoration was claimed to be offensive to him? Most wedding cakes are boring white or pastel colors with flowers. There is nothing offensive about them.
Then bake the wedding cake for the LGBT couple and take their money because their money is just as green and they have more of it to spend.
We don't agree very often, but here we are simpatico.
Was the first such case hunted to set them up? I honestly don't know. I do know these cases (hunted or not) will continue until the rights of LGBTQ are respected. Long term the popular attitude is not on the Baker's side. That saying we should not make laws based on popular opinion, but we do and always have.
It's a tricky dynamic - or at least I think it should be seen as such. I know that civil rights lawyers in the 50s were looking for just the right cases to take up the judicial ladder, and that's a wise thing. But we don't have the sense of them ambushing people the way we sometimes do in the modern cases.
There is some evidence that in some of these cases, the plaintiffs sought out providers who they had good reason to believe would refuse their request when they easily could have gone elsewhere. That doesn't make the refusal okay, but it does make the plaintiff look like a bully.
Well, we do live in dumb times!
Maybe if the faux christian STOPPED breaking the law he would be left alone
Who has determined he broke the law?
No, they will never leave him alone. This is what people full of hate do. This is an old suit that was thrown out of court and they are just trying to harass the man again. What is to gain of this? Nothing except to harass the man.
Can they not find something more worthwhile with their time and money than bullying a small bakery? I think they could, how about putting the money towards education or helping those who have medical issues and suicidal thoughts. There are many positive options to help the LGBT people instead of just targeting a religious person for no other reason than intimidation.
This new lawsuit was thrown out before and will be again, what a waste.
Haters gotta hate. It's what they do .....
This is doing more harm to the happy gay "community" than they realize, and the popular support is solidly for Phillips.
Nobody likes a bully, regardless of their intentions.
I suggest that he follow the spirit of the public accommodation law and stop trying to weaponize his religious beliefs to defend discrimination in a public business. People don't like bigots.
His religious beliefs do not exempt him from secular law because if they did then we could not have laws or a constitution. If that were permissible then everyone could claim that they are a religion unto themselves and the laws are in violation of their religious beliefs. he knew of the Public Accommodation requirement when he applied for a business license and he was notified of the Colorate state anti-discrimination law so he cannot now claim ignorance or religious belief as a defense.
The law gives him multiple options as a recourse, but denial of service to selected demographics is not one of them.
I find it interesting that you consider people who are fighting for equal rights to be full of hate, rather than the people who are trying to discriminate against others.
Targeting the same person is nothing but hate. Why not focus elsewhere, where maybe there is an actual case? This particular case has been dismissed before.
I find it interesting that you see words that are not written.
Many of us operate on the age old principle of taking our business where it is wanted and appreciated.
Someone doesn't want my business? I take it elsewhere. No muss, no fuss ..... easy peezy, lemon breezy.
My suggestion is to follow that principle as a rule. You'll live longer.
Just as black people were expected to do decades ago. I'm sorry you think that's reasonable.
People said the same thing about black people trying to patronize whites-only businesses.
I'm sure you'll disagree with this but its not even close to the same thing.
The cake eaters in question could have easily found someone else to bake their cake. Many others in fact. Black people in the time you speak of could not use ANY white restroom or ride in the front seat of ANY bus for example. They had no options like the cake eaters.
You'll need to do better than that.
Apparently you didn't read the words of the actual ruling. If the Colorado decision hadn't been influenced by religious animus, it's doubtful they would have lost. And Kennedy said that further elaboration in the courts was required. He made it clear that this is far from over. This is why people are trying again, so that the right case can be made for the court to consider.
Did you read the article? It is about this case....which I was referring to.
Yep, I disagree. If there had been only one white-owned restaurant that refused to serve blacks, it would have been just as bad as no white-owned business serving blacks. It's treating them as inferior citizens.
That fine and to be expected in your case but you would be wrong. As clearly pointed out, your comparison is not valid in the context of this discussion. Not valid at all.
The article said nothing about this being the second lawsuit by Scardina; I had to do research just now to find that out.
The first lawsuit was dropped by mutual agreement by the state and Phillips. So Scardina decided to pursue it on her own, hence the third lawsuit.
Kennedy said this would happen. So now people are seeking the further elaboration from the courts, and this time it will hopefully be presented in a lawful fashion.
You'll need to do better than that.
As clearly pointed out, your comparison is not valid in the context of this discussion. Not valid at all.
We can go back and forth on this, or we can just agree to disagree. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. I read up enough on this to feel confident in my take on it, and I presume you've done the same on your end. Therefore I won't bother saying again that it's your comparison which is not valid, and then you'll tell me that nope, it's mine which isn't valid, and 30 comments later we'll still be at it.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
Hope you have a great day.
You, too.
"Now, this is not exactly a life-or-death situation. Nobody is in danger of having anything hurt but their feelings. The guy makes sandwiches. He's not the only lunch counter in Denver. Hell, he's not even the only lunch counter on his block. But Autumn Scardina can't just go to another lunch counter, because this isn't about purchasing a sandwich. It's about persecuting a man for his religious beliefs. It's not about promoting tolerance. It's about punishing dissenters.
Phillips isn't running around with a baseball bat, busting up interracial weddings and black parties. He's not stopping any of these folks from living their own lives. He's just refusing to participate. What's gained by forcing him?
I'll never understand why lefties keep demanding food from people who don't want to make it for them. Are they going to sue if it doesn't taste good?"
Sounds like it's right out of the 1950's. When will these religious nut jobs get a clue and stop discriminating? It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian or Muslim, if you bake wedding cakes for the general public, then you better sell them to everyone including our LGTBQ citizens who have done nothing wrong and are law abiding, tax paying Americans simply asking to be treated like anyone else. Why is it so hard for some to understand this?
The latest case does not concern a wedding. The Supreme Court has said it is within his rights to decline to decorate a wedding cake with a homosexual theme if doing so conflicts with his religious beliefs.
The current case concerns decorating a "transition" cake for a lawyer who has yet to have the surgery, who has admitted to filing it as an attempt to harass Phillips.
Everyone's rights need to be respected, and that includes Christians and other people of faith.
Absolutely. And when you run a public business, you are not allowed to discriminate. Decorating a cake is not "participating in a wedding." If they didn't bother to read up on the law before they started their business, they certainly are aware of it now - and yet they continue to discriminate. Too bad they can't respect everyone's rights.
They did? I never read that conclusion.
What exactly was the homosexual theme on a wedding cake?
Greg is doing a little spinning here - the ruling stated the CO State Commission used biased reasoning in it's decision. The legal wording in the ruling matters, because they skirted the whole LGBTQ rights issue and ruled only on what the CO State Commission had done.
"In July 2017, Denver-based attorney Autumn Scardina asked Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, a devout Christian, to bake her a cake. Phillips refused, according to Scardina’s lawsuit, because she is transgender.
In addition to violating her civil rights, Scardina claims the bakery falsely advertised “they would be happy to provide a variety of baked goods, including birthday cakes, to all members of the public, including LGBT individuals.”
Scardina says she attempted to commission a pink cake with blue frosting , telling a bakery employee “the requested design had personal significance for her because it reflects her status as a transgender female.” She says she was then told the cake shop did not make cakes for “a sex change celebration.”
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission first sued Phillips in 2014 after he refused to make a same-sex couple’s wedding cake, arguing his religious beliefs prevent him from creating something he didn’t believe in."
While I agree, no one should be compelled to make something they wouldn't normally make for anyone else at their business, that isn't the case here. If you paint cars, you can't be forced to airbrush big penises on the hood if that's not a design you normally offer. But if you do have a design you offer to everyone, perhaps hood flames, then you should have no problem putting them on a gay guys car even if he told you they would represent how "flamingly" gay he was. If the baker would offer a pink and blue frosting cake to anyone else, then he should have no problem making a pink and blue cake for a trans American regardless of how the customer wants to use it or what those colors may symbolize for them. Now if they asked him to add a dick on the blue side and a vagina on the pink side, well that's not something he'd do on any cake for any customer so it's well within his rights to deny that design, but he can't simply refuse to offer a cake because of the customers sexual orientation or gender identity.
I agree. Phillips said no to the couple before there was ever any discussion of the cake's flavors, layers or decorations. Wedding cakes are not like a birthday and most have no writing or pictures on them. The plastic couple cake toppers are passe' and if the customer wants them it is their choice to procure them.
That's because the Supreme Court never said that. When you only get your news from Breitbart and InfoWars and don't read the actual ruling, I guess that's what happens.
I thought that couples stopped using those 20 years ago.
So they have 100% religious freedom, now they are crying that they can't use their religion to be bigots?
Wow.
Bigots have been using religion to excuse their bigotry for nearly as long as recorded human history. Whether it's to justify their abuse of Native Americans and the forcible conversions at the hands of Spanish Catholic conquistadors or abuses and enslavement of natives by supposed God fearing Protestants and the importation of black slaves from Africa, nearly all claimed their religion clearly allowed, and in some cases claimed demanded them, to treat their fellow man as inferior. It was used to support slavery, it was used to deny blacks and women a right to vote, it was used to support segregation, misogynistic patriarchy's and it was used to support bans on interracial and gay marriage. That's why the religious conservatives are cryi9ng out and gnashing their teeth at all they imagine they've lost and why Trump is so attractive who is giving them the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" inferring that he wants to "Make America Great Again" which in their minds is pre-Brown v Board of education. It's why Trump is having his nominees refuse to answer any questions on Brown v Board of education that destroyed the flawed concept of separate but equal.
Trump and the religious conservative sycophants who put him in office had the specific religious agenda of turning our nation into a theocracy where they can create a permanent pedestal for white Christians while also creating a supposed "separate but equal" status for everyone else. They fight for in under the guise of victimhood as they constantly whine about being under attack, yet when you examine their supposed plight, the only thing they've apparently lost is their imagined right to discriminate. When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression.
For a group, Christians, that are constantly playing the victim card you'd think that they would take a long look at their own history.
They were the ones that denied Native Americans freedom of religion. Native religions were outlawed and had severe restrictions put on them in the late 1800's. It wasn't until the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in 1978 that this was overturned. For a group that claims the US is the land of religious freedom and that they are victims is beyond ridiculous.
They are also the groups that ran the ''Indian Boarding Schools'' that beat us if we spoke our language or tried to honor or spiritual being. The boarding school era lasted from the late 1800 to 1980's....The horrors inflicted on native children are beyond imagination. The US government allowed various Christian groups to run these so called boarding schools and attendance was forced on us by law...
When the whiners on NT claim that their religious freedom is being violated they are just full of shit when compared to what they have done to others in this country.
I do not think we should force athiest bakers to bake christian cakes and force lgbt wedding planners to do straight weddings... but I am weird like that.
the courts have ruled in favor of religious liberty before and my bet is they do it again.
cheers
I'd happily bake the cake but I hate the fussy decorations on a wedding cake. Its just a cake and the goal is green.
When did the SCOTUS ever rule in favor of religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate in a public business?
Whatever turns your crank........
I said "the courts" not scotus.
but to answer your question anyway/
the supreme court never said religious liberty was a reason to discriminate
but the supreme court did rule in favor of religious liberty while in business. and they will do it again.
taken from another religious liberty case... in the united states district court - texas
citing precedent set by the supreme court... that court said...
and the U.S district courts final ruling again in favor of religious liberty
like it or not, "religious liberty" is making a comeback
if the courts will not make a business buy something that goes against their religious beliefs... how they gonna make them sell something that goes against their religious beliefs? answer: they won't. they will carve out another exception to the rule. / simple as that.
cheers