Will They Ever Leave Him Alone? Christian Baker Jack Phillips Is Being Sued—Again

  
Via:  heartland-american  •  2 weeks ago  •  319 comments

Will They Ever Leave Him Alone? Christian Baker Jack Phillips Is Being Sued—Again
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.

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.

CBS Denver:

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

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    2 weeks ago

“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.”

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago
None of the libs who demand compliance from Christian bakers had any problem with Muslim bakers committing the same hate crime.

Please provide links of the examples you are claiming exist.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    2 weeks ago

Go find them yourself.  The articles words stand.  

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.2  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Go find them yourself.  The articles words stand.  

You made the claim so you need to bake up your claim when someone asks for supporting evidence.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

There are a bunch of citations on a web search. I’ll take the word of the article author. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.4  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
There are a bunch of citations on a web search.

Then you shouldn't have a problem posting them as proof when requested. 

I’ll take the word of the article author. 

That is a confirmation bias. Just because you agree with the author doesnt mean that what he is saying is factual.   It only means that you agree with his opinions but opinions are subjective and unique to the person. Facts, on the other hand, are objective.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
You made the claim

The article's author made the claim and the video he is talking about is right there in the article.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.6  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
The article's author made the claim and the video he is talking about is right there in the article.

JeffersonXXX posted the thread because this didn't appear by magic.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Are you saying JeffersonXXX wrote the article? If not, why should the seeder be responsible for proving all (or any) points made by someone else? I have never seen that be the standard for any seed.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.8  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
Are you saying JeffersonXXX wrote the article? If not, why should the seeder be responsible for proving all (or any) points made by someone else? I have never seen that be the standard for any seed.

I didn't say or even suggest that he wrote it because it is obvious that he did not. I said that he posted it and with that comes the intellectual responsibility to defend it when requested for more info.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
he posted it and with that comes the intellectual responsibility to defend it

Since when??? Plenty of people seed articles they have no opinion on or don't even agree with. The seed is here for all of us to discuss. The seeder is under no obligation at all to defend the content of his seed. That's ridiculous.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.10  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
Since when??? Plenty of people seed articles they have no opinion on or don't even agree with. The seed is here for all of us to discuss. The seeder is under no obligation at all to defend the content of his seed. That's ridiculous.

It is obvious that JeffersonXXX supports Jack Phillips so why shouldn't he have to post supporting information when asked?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Who cares? Even if true, he still is under no special obligation to defend claims made in someone else's article. Fight a different battle. That's crazy.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.12  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
Who cares?

It matters.

Even if true, he still is under no special obligation to defend claims made in someone else's article. Fight a different battle. That's crazy.

He chose to post this thread from a source of his choosing, so unless he made it very clear that he disapproves with the claim and is posting this to start a discussion, then he is supposed to defend what he chose to seed. These seeds are not to be dumped here and the seeder just walks away.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

Well then you better flag it and complain, right? Cuz the claim you're making sounds like made-up BS to me.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    2 weeks ago
Please provide links of the examples you are claiming exist.

It wasn't hard to find:

"Muslim bakers and florists have flown under the media radar during the recent uproar over Christian-owned businesses and gay rights, but a hidden-camera video may have changed that.

The video showing Muslim bakers in Michigan reluctant to bake a cake for a gay wedding went viral last weekend, snaring more than 2.2 million views in three days and igniting debate over whether Christian business owners are being singled out for lawsuits, complaints and media focus.

That, of course, was the point of the video. Steven Crowder, conservative comedian and host of the podcast Louder with Crowder, said he believes that the Muslim bakers are well within their rights to refuse the cake-baking job — and so are Christian bakers.

“I’m not even saying these Muslim bakeries shouldn’t have a right to do whatever they did — they absolutely should — and many more of them would than Christian bakeries,” said Mr. Crowder in comments on the video.

This month’s fierce national debate over religious-freedom bills, particularly in Arkansas and Indiana, has increased the attention on Christian-owned businesses, which suddenly find themselves the subject of intense and potentially ruinous media focus."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/


I'm not sure what point Crowder was making in that story, but clearly gay activists didn't file a complaint about that......Why not?

That's the elephant in the room!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

That was a hoax video.  Kind of like that moron, I forget his name, who did those hoax videos about Planned Parenthood.  The Washington Times is not a valid source.  

I'm not sure if hoax is the correct word but that Crowder moron has no validity.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.16  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

The Washington Times is a valid source. So is the video presented.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
That was a hoax video. 

That's a serious charge. Can you prove it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.17    2 weeks ago
'That's a serious charge. Can you prove it?'

For serious?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.18    2 weeks ago

I didn't think so.

Anyone else?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.20  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
That was a hoax video

Prove it!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.21  1stwarrior  replied to  epistte @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

r-r-r-r-r-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-c-c-c-c-c-c-c-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h for any answer, eh?

Please show us how it is "OBVIOUS" that XX supports Mr. Phillips???  Please show us why he "shouldn't" have to post supporting information???  Please show us why you have decided to turn this discussion into a ranting against XX's thread???

My recommendation would be for you to discuss the thread and if you have any counterpoints against the AUTHOR of the thread, bring them up.  If you don't wanna discuss the thread, then "maybe" you shouldn't be lambasting the seeder - ya think?

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.22  Sunshine  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
Prove it!

If a gay consumer targets a particular bakery it's discrimination, but if a heterosexual targets a particular bakery it's

a hoax.  

Liberal logic.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.23  epistte  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
Please show us how it is "OBVIOUS" that XX supports Mr. Phillips???  Please show us why he "shouldn't" have to post supporting information???  Please show us why you have decided to turn this discussion into a ranting against XX's thread??? My recommendation would be for you to discuss the thread and if you have any counterpoints against the AUTHOR of the thread, bring them up.  If you don't wanna discuss the thread, then "maybe" you shouldn't be lambasting the seeder - ya think?

JeffersonXXX-for-Palin has created multiple threads about Jack Phillps supposed religious rights being trampled by evil LGBT.  

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.24  katrix  replied to  epistte @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

Christian dominionists are always whining about how it's persecution when they are prevented from persecuting or discriminating against others

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    2 weeks ago
I'm not sure what point Crowder was making in that story, but clearly gay activists didn't file a complaint about that......Why not?

You should check out the video and LISTEN to what he says to the bakers. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.26  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
So is the video presented.

So is it your posit that Crowder is a gay man trying to buy a cake? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
Prove it!

Have you watched the video? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.28  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.17    2 weeks ago
That's a serious charge. Can you prove it?

Have you watched the video? 

Hoax:

a humorous or malicious deception

Is Crowder gay? 

Answer: NO. 

How many of those Muslim bakeries actually bake wedding cakes? 

Answer: NONE. 

How many denied Crowder service? 

Answer: NONE. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

Yawn

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.30  epistte  replied to  katrix @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
Christian dominionists are always whining about how it's persecution when they are prevented from persecuting or discriminating against others

Equal rights for others are an anathema to them. They will pay lip service to equal rights but the truth is that white Christian males deserve just a few more than everyone else in their eyes so as to preserve their social authority.

 This bigot thinks that he can nullify the Obergfell v. Hodges ruling by citing his religious beliefs, but the legal precedents are not in his favor.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.31  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

What does that have to do with gay activists?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.31    2 weeks ago

If you had watched the video you would KNOW why 'gay activists' didn't file a complaint. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.33  livefreeordie  replied to  katrix @1.1.24    2 weeks ago

Who are these “Christian dominionists”?   57 years as a Christian and nearly 40 years in the ministry and I’ve never met one

but that doesn’t stop those who hate Jesus from applying false labels upon Christians

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.34  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.33    2 weeks ago
Who are these “Christian dominionists”?

"Last month, while NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre was regaling culture warriors at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference with tales of socialists trying to take away their guns, Christian Dominionists were holding an event called “The Turnaround: An Appeal to Heaven National Gathering,” at Washington’s Trump International Hotel. It featured some of the most prominent Christian Dominionists in the country. Although there are various iterations of Dominionism, Dominionists are united in their belief that conservative Christians should take complete control of all the political, secular and cultural institutions in the country.

Though they are not nearly as well known as Christian Right leaders, such as Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham and Robert Jeffress Jr., top Dominionist leaders like Dutch Sheets, Chuck Pierce, Cindy Jacobs and Lou Engle are a force worth paying attention to."

https://truthout.org/articles/christian-dominionists-meet-at-trump-s-washington-hotel-to-answer-the-divine-call-to-war/

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.35  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.34    2 weeks ago

I didn’t say none exist. But they are such a tiny fringe that you couldn’t even give a percentage of Evangelicals to them.  

As I said 57 years and I’ve never met one. Never met a single pastor or other believer who said they agree with them.

dominionism is completely in opposition to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.36  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.1.32    2 weeks ago

Ya, because they got an excuse.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.36    2 weeks ago
Ya, because they got an excuse.

What excuse is that? 

BTW, what discrimination was Crowder subjected to that 'gay activists' should be up in arms about?  Please be specific. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.36    2 weeks ago

Where's your answer? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.39  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.35    2 weeks ago

Because you never met one doesn't mean they don't exist 'pastor', in record numbers.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.40  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.39    2 weeks ago

Dominionism is a heretical belief that most Evangelicals correctly reject, the left out of scare tactics and ignorance overstate its relevance among Christians

From the Washington Post

“Extremist dominionists do exist, as theocrats who hope to transform our democracy into something that looks like ancient Israel, complete with stoning as punishment. But “it’s a pretty small world,” says Worthen, who studies these groups.

Mark DeMoss, whose Atlanta-based public relations firm represents several Christian groups, put it this way: “You would be hard-pressed to find one in 1,000 Christians in America who could even wager a guess at what dominionism is.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/dominionism-beliefs-among-conservative-christians-overblown/2011/08/17/gIQAb5eaNJ_story.html

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.41  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.40    2 weeks ago

Just because some don't know what it is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, in record numbers.  

 
 
 
epistte
1.2  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago
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.

Religious-based discrimination in public business isn't a hate crime.  Refusing to serve all people equally is a violation of the public accommodation protections of the Civil Rights Act.

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?

Muslims bakeries don't bake wedding cakes for anyone because a western wedding cake is not common in their culture. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  epistte @1.2    2 weeks ago

They don't, then what are these?

https://www.google.com/search?q=muslim+wedding+cakes&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAj4D1geHiAhUFaq0KHa2rADoQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1920&bih=969

http://perfectmuslimwedding.com/wedding-cake

https://www.etsy.com/market/muslim_wedding_cake

https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/muslim-wedding-cake-topper.html

https://medium.com/@carterrobin/ideas-for-a-wedding-cake-in-a-muslim-wedding-d6f26436dd1

https://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/80325

i would like to know what the ruling is regarding wedding cakes.

as i make cakes for people and i take cake orders however i do not make birthday cakes, or wedding cakes.

i know that birthday cakes are not allowed but i am confused regarding wedding cakes as some respected, practicing muslims also buy wedding cakes for their wedding functions.

so i would like to know what the ruling is before i take any wedding cake orders.

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

Whilst Shari’ah allows us to celebrate and rejoice on happy occasions, it discourages from imitating the ways of the Kuffār. As such, it is permissible to make and sell wedding cakes, however, it is best to refrain from designing the cakes in a manner that is similar to the Kuffār.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikah-Mubarak-Glitter-Cake-Topper-Engagement-Wedding-Muslim-Wedding-Islamic-/302812224589

https://www.aliexpress.com/popular/muslim-wedding-decoration.html

https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/family-lifestyle-community-culture/islamic-lifestyle-social-issues/354345-halal-cake-business-in-west-london-catering-for-birthdays-weddings-etc

Oh, and here is the Crowder video, along with a backup article about it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/04/steven_crowder_gay_wedding_cakes_at_muslim_bakeries.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.2  epistte  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

if the bakery doesn't sell wedding cakes then the customers cannot force them to make them. You cannot go into a Jewish deli and force them to make you a ham sandwich if it isn't on the menu.

Come back to me when you find an Arabic bakery in the US making western wedding cakes, but only selling them to certain people.  I've been to Dearborn may times, but I've never seen a wedding cake in any of the bakeries there.

I love this place,

http://shatila.com/blog/

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.2    2 weeks ago
Muslims bakeries don't bake wedding cakes for anyone because a western wedding cake is not common in their culture.

I'm pretty sure lots of Muslims have cakes at their weddings - especially in the United States.

A Traditional Muslim Wedding in Bloomington, MN

Each layer of the four-
tiered buttercream cake was bordered with a gold scroll design and peacock feathers. The topper was fashioned 
to resemble the couple.

Perfect Muslim Wedding

photos-by-lanty-575187-unsplash.jpghttp://perfectmuslimwedding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/photos-by-lanty-575187-unsplash-283x425.jpg 283w, http://perfectmuslimwedding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/photos-by-lanty-575187-unsplash-768x1152.jpg 768w, http://perfectmuslimwedding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/photos-by-lanty-575187-unsplash-683x1024.jpg 683w, http://perfectmuslimwedding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/photos-by-lanty-575187-unsplash-750x1125.jpg 750w" sizes="(max-width: 3369px) 100vw, 3369px" >

4c3d6631e41bfa9bb5afcd89d55c39c4.jpeg

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.4  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

Who baked those cakes?

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

Who cares? They are "western wedding cakes" (to use your terminology) at Muslim weddings.

By the way, if you look at the video, I don't know how much wedding work those places get, but you can look in at least one of the display cases and clearly see several cakes, so don't tell me Muslim bakers don't make cakes.

And if you want to say that a wedding cake is a different thing from a regular cake, then you are making Jack Phillips's case for him. That has been his point all along.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.6  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
Who cares? They are "western wedding cakes" (to use your terminology) at Muslim weddings.

Were they made at a Arabic bakery that would deny the same service to LGBT couples?

By the way, if you look at the video, I don't know how much wedding work those places get, but you can look in at least one of the display cases and clearly see several cakes, so don't tell me Muslim bakers don't make cakes. And if you want to say that a wedding cake is a different thing from a regular cake, then you are making Jack Phillips's case for him. That has been his point all along.

If he sells a wedding cake to one person he must sell them to anyone else who seeks to buy them. He refuses to do that because of his religious beliefs. This is the central problem. He is prohibited from asking if they are even getting married when they seek to buy a wedding cake. A parent could buy a weeding cake for their daughters 6th birthday and he is prohibited from saying no to that customer. A wedding cake has no religious connections, despite his claims.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
Were they made at a Arabic bakery that would deny the same service to LGBT couples?

Again I have no idea. I sense you trying to move goal posts, though. Save it for someone else.

A wedding cake has no religious connections, despite his claims.

Then the baker Crowder went to has no business refusing to sell him a cake for his gay wedding.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.8  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.7    2 weeks ago
Again I have no idea. I sense you trying to move goal posts, though. Save it for someone else.

I am not trying to move the goalpost. You said that a Muslim baker would refuse to sell a wedding cake to an LGBT couple because of their religious beliefs and I responded that wedding cakes are not common in the Muslim community. Were those cakes baked by a Muslim baker or a western bakery?  Most Muslim bakeries do not bake western wedding cakes.

Then the baker Crowder went to has no business refusing to sell him a cake for his gay wedding.

Did that baker sell wedding cakes to heterosexuals?  You cannot go to a Jewish deli and demand that they make you a ham sandwich when they don't offer ham on the menu, just because they may sell corned beef, tongue and pastrami.  A wedding cake is a special order and if they do not offer that service to anyone then you cannot demand it or claim discrimination when they refuse to do so. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure lots of Muslims have cakes at their weddings - especially in the United States.

Are you sure that they buy their wedding cakes from Muslim bakeries?

None of your links indicate what bakery made the cakes pictured.  

BTW, I checked a couple of the cities vendors list in your link, not one Muslim bakery was listed. 

 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
Who cares?

The seed claims that the Crowder video proves that Muslim bakers are just as religiously bigoted as Phillips. So WHO baked those cakes is inherently relevant.

By the way, if you look at the video, I don't know how much wedding work those places get, but you can look in at least one of the display cases and clearly see several cakes, so don't tell me Muslim bakers don't make cakes.

Crowder LIES in the video when he says that 'all of these places do do custom wedding cakes, that's their business, that's kinda what they do.' THAT IS A LIE. One of them is a pita bakery that bakes only BREAD. Another doesn't bake ANY kind of cakes. 

Oh and BTW, WRITING on a cake is different than DECORATING a cake. Don't tell me that you can't understand that difference. You heard that Crowder stated that the writing on his cake was the most important thing right? 

And if you want to say that a wedding cake is a different thing from a regular cake, then you are making Jack Phillips's case for him. That has been his point all along.

No, Phillips 'case' is that 'gay' wedding cakes are different than 'straight' wedding cakes. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.11  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.10    2 weeks ago
Oh and BTW, WRITING on a cake is different than DECORATING a cake.

Congratulations! You just made the Jack Phillips legal team.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.12  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
Oh and BTW, WRITING on a cake is different than DECORATING a cake.

I think it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.2.8    2 weeks ago
You said that a Muslim baker would refuse

I'm pretty sure I haven't made any claims about what Muslim bakers would or would not do. But thanks for showing up and making up a straw man. 

A wedding cake is a special order

I swear, Jack Phillips should fire his lawyer and hire you. Keep it up!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.11    2 weeks ago
Congratulations! You just made the Jack Phillips legal team.

Really Tacos!? When did Phillips legal team claim that he had been asked to WRITE on a gay wedding cake. Please link the brief where that argument was made. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.15  epistte  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    2 weeks ago
Really Tacos!? When did Phillips legal team claim that he had been asked to WRITE on a gay wedding cake. Please link the brief where that argument was made. 

I have asked to see the customer design sketch but nobody has yet provided it, because it does not exist. Jack Phillps said no to them as soon as he knew that they were gay.  He cannot claim that the cake design was offensive because it was never discussed.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.12    2 weeks ago
I think it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I don't.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.13    2 weeks ago
I swear, Jack Phillips should fire his lawyer and hire you. Keep it up!

Why would he fire a law firm that is working pro bono? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.18  Dulay  replied to  epistte @1.2.15    2 weeks ago
He cannot claim that the cake design was offensive because it was never discussed.

Yes, it's unfortunate that all too many bloviate about a topic that they obviously know nothing about. After their comment is challenged, they seem to be too fucking lazy to review the facts for themselves before spewing even more bullshit that they can't support.  

Then of course, they follow it with a disappearing act. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.19  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.18    2 weeks ago
it's unfortunate that all too many bloviate about a topic that they obviously know nothing about.

And yet you keep coming back to comment. jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.19    2 weeks ago
And yet you keep coming back to comment.

As do you, yet not to answer the questions put to you but to swipe at me. Well done. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.20    2 weeks ago
but to swipe at me

What I wrote amounted to something on the order of "same to you." And you wanna cry about it now. But it's totally ok when you swipe at others. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.21    2 weeks ago
What I wrote amounted to something on the order of "same to you."

I believe that trolling is frowned upon on NT. 

And you wanna cry about it now.

I'm not crying about anything. Merely stating fact. 

But it's totally ok when you swipe at others.

If you internalized my comment about bloviating lazy bullshit, you should ask yourself why. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.23  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.19    2 weeks ago
And yet you keep coming back to comment.

That is a nice personal attack that you have there.

 Jack Phillps religious beliefs aren't threatened because his customers never inquired about them and we do not know the religious beliefs of the customers in question. Phillips can not claim that his religious beliefs are being threatened if his customers are also Christian.

His customers never asked for his religious approval/blessing of their nuptials, nor was his input welcome.  A cake is not a religious item and it is not part of the wedding.

The SCOTUS has never ruled that a public business ever had the right to invoke their religious beliefs as a reason not to serve a customer.   The opposite is true because Maurice Bessinger claim was nullified by the court when he also claimed that his religious beliefs were a valid reason not to serve black and interracial customers. There is no passage in the Bible where Jesus tells his followers to act in this manner, so discrimination cannot be a religious belief. 

You have no evidence to suggest that the cake design was in any way offensive because the design was never discussed before JackPhillips refused to their request.  If the potential cake was offensively decorated then Jack Phillips would need to show proof, but he never has.

You are already 30 meters deep in a hole in this discussion, so if you desire to get out, you need to stop digging yourself deeper.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.24  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.2.23    2 weeks ago
That is a nice personal attack that you have there.

Where? Nevermind. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Jack Phillps religious beliefs aren't threatened because his customers never inquired about them

That's tortured logic if I've ever seen it. Their inquiry or lack of it has nothing to do with how he feels about religion. His religious beliefs exist irrespective of anyone inquiring into them. Just. Wow!

we do not know the religious beliefs of the customers in question

Nor would we care. They're not relevant.

His customers never asked for his religious approval/blessing of their nuptials, nor was his input welcome.

No, they just asked him to do something he didn't want to do. His stated reason is religious.

A cake is not a religious item

That's not for you to decide and the Supreme Court would never so decide. They have already they don't do that. He believes what he believes.

it is not part of the wedding

Are you serious with that? Sure seems like it is since the customer is trying to order a "wedding cake" you know . . . for their wedding.

Most of this and the rest of what you have written doesn't even connect to anything I have said about the case, so I don't know why you are bothering with this nonsense. You're trying to argue with me about things I haven't even expressed a position about. What a mess. The mind reels. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.25  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.22    2 weeks ago
I believe that trolling is frowned upon on NT.

Yeah. It'd be neat if that influenced you to stop doing it, but it doesn't seem to have that effect.

If you internalized my comment about bloviating lazy bullshit, you should ask yourself why. 

I know why and I'm happy to tell you - and everyone else. You wrote it to epistte who interjected into the middle of an exchange you were having with me. So the most obvious context is that you were referring specifically to me. I've seen you and others here do this kind of thing before. You passive aggressively insult someone by expressing your insult to a third person (friend of yours) in the conversation instead of directly to the person themselves. You do this to hide from moderators.

But I'm not making a big deal or anything. I'm just - as you said - "merely stating fact."

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.24    2 weeks ago
That's tortured logic if I've ever seen it. Their inquiry or lack of it has nothing to do with how he feels about religion. His religious beliefs exist irrespective of anyone inquiring into them. Just. Wow!

How Phillips feels about religion has nothing to do with him being required to conduct his business as licensed and regulated by the state. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.27  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.25    2 weeks ago

Well said.  Let’s everyone keep it civil and discuss the topic not the person stating an opinion.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.28  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.26    2 weeks ago
has nothing to do with

Of course it does. It obviously does or we wouldn't be having the conversation. The question still pending is whether those beliefs override the state's interest in protecting people based on sexual orientation. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.29  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.25    2 weeks ago
Yeah. It'd be neat if that influenced you to stop doing it, but it doesn't seem to have that effect.

You first. 

So the most obvious context is that you were referring specifically to me.

Perhaps it would behoove you to look past the 'most obvious', especially if looking through a bias lens. 

You should review the comments in this seed alone. There are a plethora of bloviation, laziness and bullshit comments, only a fraction of which were posted by you. 

instead of directly to the person themselves.

Any review of my replies to you will prove that I have invariably confronted you face to face. 

You do this to hide from moderators.

Bullshit. I confront mods just like I confront you. ASK THEM...

But I'm not making a big deal or anything.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

I'm just - as you said - "merely stating fact."

Nope, only opinions. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.30  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.27    2 weeks ago

Wow, you've taken the carrot and the stick to a whole new level.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.31  epistte  replied to  Dulay @1.2.26    2 weeks ago
How Phillips feels about religion has nothing to do with him being required to conduct his business as licensed and regulated by the state. 

The fact that he disagrees with their relationship doesn't in any way means that his religious beliefs are threatened. He can dress as Jesus and attend services every 2 hours if he wants, but he still has to wear a hairnet and wash his hands.   If he cannot be an adult and learn how to deal with others, then he made the wrong career choice.  He cannot blame his customers for that decision. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.32  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.28    2 weeks ago
Of course it does. It obviously does or we wouldn't be having the conversation. The question still pending is whether those beliefs override the state's interest in protecting people based on sexual orientation. 

His bigotry does not overrule their rights in a public business.  That would go to the core authority of the public accommodation act. If he can deny service to LGBT couples because of his religious bigotry then what would prohibit racists from opening "whites only" business again?

Your religious beliefs do not exempt you from obeying secular law because if they did then the power of the Constitution would be void.  Anyone would only need to create their own religion and claim that secular law is a violation of their religious belief to exempt them from whatever law they are accused of violating. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.33  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @1.2.32    2 weeks ago
Your religious beliefs do not exempt you from obeying secular law

In this case it might. We just don't know yet. The Supreme Court said it might, but didn't decide the matter.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker's refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker's creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker's refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1723 (2018)

Ultimately, all the Court determined was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased and unfair in their approach. Legal can kicked down the road.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.33    2 weeks ago

From what I have read, she asked for pink cake with blue frosting for her birthday. They were happy to bake it until she said that the colors were significant because she is transgender. For some reason, they got stuck on the transgender thing and couldn't see it as a birthday cake anymore. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.35  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.34    2 weeks ago

For the record, I think the baker has his head deeply up his butt, but I can imagine a scenario similar to that, which I might sympathize with. For example, what if someone asked for a black, white, and red cake? OK, no problem. But then what if you find out it's for some nazi celebration? You might say you want no part of that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.36  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.35    2 weeks ago
For the record, I think the baker has his head deeply up his butt,

Which I'm sure he describes as an artistic expression of his faith...

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

but I can imagine a scenario similar to that, which I might sympathize with.

So what if you had already made a black, white and red cake and customer comes in and says they want it for a Nazi celebration? Do you sell it to him? Do you stop making black, white and red cakes because now that you know that someone sees them as Nazi symbolism? 

Like a birthday cake with pink cake and blue frosting. Just because the colors are symbolic doesn't change the fact that it's a birthday cake. 

BTW, Phillips advertises and stated more than once in interviews that he would make custom birthday cakes for the LGBT community. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.37  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.2.36    2 weeks ago
Do you stop making black, white and red cakes because now that you know that someone sees them as Nazi symbolism? 

I mean you hope not, but it seems like we can't have all sorts of nice things because some asshole made the ordinary famous (infamous). I have an ancestor named Adolf, but do you think I'd name any of my own kids Adolf? A mustache that was adorable on Charlie Chaplin became iconically hideous on Hitler. Even the swastika has a perfectly benign meaning in other cultures. It sucks, but this is how we respond to things. Can black, white, and red on anything be far behind?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago

It's kind of selective outrage and selective punishment, isn't it?   That is the culture liberals have created for us. Protected groups & extended rights!

 
 
 
epistte
1.3.1  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago
It's kind of selective outrage and selective punishment, isn't it?   That is the culture liberals have created for us. Protected groups & extended rights!

If gender identity or sexual orientation are protected categories what do you lose? You are (likely) heterosexual and CIS, so those federal protections also apply to you and me, just like protections of race, creed color, and gender apply to everyone equally.   

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago

This concerns the tran who wanted a "transition" celebration cake decorated, since the case the state of Colorado filed, was dropped. This most likely was done to keep Colorado out of the spotlight as ex-gov Hickenlooper is running for president.

Now she is suing on her own, but is not likely to prevail, as the courts will likely look upon this case as frivolous and amounts to harassment. Jack has many friends in the legal community who support him. The left is simply trying to punish him and drive him out of business.

Remember what the Supreme Court determined:   The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices," the opinion of the Court read. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/06/11/masterpiece-baker-sued-again-n2547887

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.4.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4    2 weeks ago

Well said. The free exercise is key here.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago

Maybe if Mr. Phillips would stop violating the law, he wouldn't be sued. Seems like common sense.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.5.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5    2 weeks ago

Unconstitutional laws that infringe upon our liberties must be opposed.   This overreach on equal access is a prime example OT a totalitarian overreach by the anti-Constitution left

Equal access before the law is proper and just. However you cannot translate that fundamental right into trampling on our individual rights of free association in furthering of our rights of expression in politics  and religion

From the Legal Information Institute at Cornel University School of Law

“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.”601 It appears from the Court’s opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition,602 although it has at times been referred to as an independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.603 The doctrine is a fairly recent construction, the problems associated with it having previously arisen primarily in the context of loyalty-security investigations of Communist Party membership, and these cases having been resolved without giving rise to any separate theory of association.

When application of a public accommodations law was viewed as impinging on an organization’s ability to present its message, the Court found a First Amendment violation. Massachusetts could not require the private organizers of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade to allow a group of gays and lesbians to march as a unit proclaiming its members’ gay and lesbian identity, the Court held in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group.630 To do so would require parade organizers to promote a message they did not wish to promote. Roberts and New York City were distinguished as not involving “a trespass on the organization’s message itself.”631 Those cases stood for the proposition that the state could require equal access for individuals to what was considered the public benefit of organization membership. But even if individual access to the parade might similarly be mandated, the Court reasoned, the gay group “could nonetheless be refused admission as an expressive contingent with its own message just as readily as a private club could exclude an applicant whose manifest views were at odds with a position taken by the club’s existing members.”

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,633 the Court held that application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts of America to admit an avowed homosexual as an adult member violated the organization’s “First Amendment right of expressive association.”634 Citing Hurley, the Court held that “[t]he forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”635 The Boy Scouts, the Court found, engages in expressive activity in seeking to transmit a system of values, which include being “morally straight” and “clean.”636 The Court “accept[ed] the Boy Scouts’ assertion” that the organization teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight.637 The Court also gave “deference to [the] association’s view of what would impair its expression.”638 Allowing a gay rights activist to serve in the Scouts would “force the organization to send a message . . . that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/right-of-association

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.2  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @1.5.1    2 weeks ago

When did the courts, especially the SCOTUS, rule such laws unconstitutional? 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.5.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Gordy327 @1.5.2    2 weeks ago

I gave you specific cases. The Courts have yet to fully and appropriately apply their free association opinions to small business which is in itself discriminatory 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.4  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @1.5.3    2 weeks ago
I gave you specific cases.

Both of which are for private groups, NOT public accommodations. 

Secondly, your link is about right to association, not equal assess to facilities and services. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.5.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  livefreeordie @1.5.1    2 weeks ago

Great posts.  Thanks for sharing them here.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.5.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  livefreeordie @1.5.3    2 weeks ago

Much appreciated

 
 
 
epistte
1.5.7  epistte  replied to  livefreeordie @1.5.3    2 weeks ago
I gave you specific cases. The Courts have yet to fully and appropriately apply their free association opinions to small business which is in itself discriminatory 

That only applies if the business is not open to the public. When  you open a business that serves the public then you are required to serve all of the public equally and not just those of your religious belief, your color or those people who vote as you do. Why is it that people cannot be a rational adult and do their job as expected? Your customers are not asking for your approval or the blessing of your religion in a public business. You sell a product or a service for money, so stop trying to complicate a very simple transaction.

 The Supreme Court has never ruled that a persons religious religious are a valid reason to discriminate in a public business. The right of free association applies in your private life, but not in a for-profit business that you voluntarily bought or opened yourself. There are many laws that apply to a business and you must comply with them when you seek a business license.  If those laws are not acceptable to you then you need to work somewhere else.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.5.8  MUVA  replied to  epistte @1.5.7    2 weeks ago

You don't have to serve everyone just because you are in business .I turn away ass holes all the time you just tell them you don't have time or give them a price that sends them away.I also don't discriminate I turn away A holes of all sexeual orintation and color. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.5.9  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @1.5.8    2 weeks ago

Exactly, A-holism has no sexual preference or political boundaries.

Thinking otherwise is simply ignorant.

 
 
 
katrix
1.5.10  katrix  replied to  MUVA @1.5.8    2 weeks ago
.I turn away ass holes all the time you just tell them you don't have time or give them a price that sends them away.I also don't discriminate I turn away A holes of all sexeual orintation and color. 

Assholes are not a protected class.  And if this baker would stop being so stupid and telling the customers he refuses to serve that it's because of their sexual orientation, he could get away with it. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.5.11  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @1.5.3    2 weeks ago
I gave you specific cases. The Courts have yet to fully and appropriately apply their free association opinions to small business which is in itself discriminatory 

It looks as if Dulay and epistte beat me to it and showed that you confuse private vs public accommodations where the law is concerned. Before you try to quote the laws, perhaps you should spend time trying to understand them first!

 
 
 
MUVA
1.5.12  MUVA  replied to  katrix @1.5.10    2 weeks ago

I agree with that.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.13  Dulay  replied to  katrix @1.5.10    2 weeks ago
And if this baker would stop being so stupid and telling the customers he refuses to serve that it's because of their sexual orientation, he could get away with it. 

Yet that would flush his 'religious beliefs' claim down the shit can and wouldn't bolster his martyrdom. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.5.14  epistte  replied to  MUVA @1.5.8    2 weeks ago
You don't have to serve everyone just because you are in business .I turn away ass holes all the time you just tell them you don't have time or give them a price that sends them away.I also don't discriminate I turn away A holes of all sexeual orintation and color. 

There are huge fines if they catch you turning away people because of their race, religion, or sex.  If those people suspect that you turned them away because of their race, religion, or gender they can send a white person and ask for the same service. If you serve them you can lose your business license or face significant fines.

It's best to just serve all people equally. Some people are jerks, but their money is the same as everyone else. So unless you have had a problem with them before it is best just to treat them nice and do what they are willing to pay for.

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
1.6  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1    2 weeks ago

This legal argument has nothing to do with religion. It is about discrimination based on one's so-called religious views.

The Founding Fathers of the Constitution were well aware of the Tyranny of Religion. That is why there is a provision in the Constitution of Separation of Church and State.

No matter how misguided, this is, at its roots, about DISCRIMINATION.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.6.1  MUVA  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @1.6    2 weeks ago

They didn't call for the separation of church and state they called for the government to make no laws for or against religion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.2  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @1.6.1    2 weeks ago
They didn't call for the separation of church and state

Yes, they did!

they called for the government to make no laws for or against religion.

That is essentially separation right there.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.6.3  MUVA  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.2    2 weeks ago

They shall make no laws for or against. I would say the government is making laws if they are trying to put this guy out of business for his religious beliefs.That being said in my own business I would never turn someone away because of the skin color or sexual orientation.I will and do turn A holes away all the time. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.4  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @1.6.3    2 weeks ago
They shall make no laws for or against. I would say the government is making laws if they are trying to put this guy out of business for his religious beliefs.

What laws are they making? As far I can tell, Mr. Phillips is still free to believe what he wants or practice his religion, attend whatever religious service he wants. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.5  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @1.6.1    2 weeks ago

They were also very concerned/interested in stopping the possibility of a  state run/sponsored religion or church.   Those were all the rage in their day, specifically in England from which we separated.

Many Atheist interpretations of the reasons for the separation are regularly bastardized to progress only their narrative.   A sad and transparent gambit.

SOSDD

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.6  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.4    2 weeks ago

And the cake eaters are free to take their business elsewhere.

See?   Now everyone is getting along.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.6.7  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.5    2 weeks ago

Exactly! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.8  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.6    2 weeks ago
And the cake eaters are free to take their business elsewhere.

So business can violate the law with no consequence as long as they claim some religious nonsense, is that it?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.9  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.8    2 weeks ago

No.   I was pretty clear.   The cake eaters can take their business elsewhere.   At this point they are only after this guy out of spite.

Nothing more, nothing less.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.10  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.9    2 weeks ago
I was pretty clear. 

As was I.

The cake eaters can take their business elsewhere.

While the baker can violate the law free of consequences.

At this point they are only after this guy out of spite.

Your opinion is noted.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.11  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.10    2 weeks ago
As was I.

I wasn't asking a question

While the baker can violate the law free of consequences.

The law of free consequences?   I admit i'm not a lawyer but still ..... thats a new one.

What is that law?   When and where was it written and promulgated?

Specifics please.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.12  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.11    2 weeks ago
The law of free consequences?   I admit i'm not a lawyer but still ..... thats a new one. What is that law?   When and where was it written and promulgated?

Public accommodations laws.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.13  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.11    2 weeks ago
When and where was it written and promulgated?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the jurisprudence of every court case on public accommodations since then. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.14  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.12    2 weeks ago

Then why didn't you say that?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.15  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.6.13    2 weeks ago

Except of course for Masterpiece Cakeshop v the Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the defendant.

So yeah, except for that one ......

What are we working on here?    Double, triple jeopardy?   It certainly is in the philosophical sense.

 
 
 
epistte
1.6.16  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.9    2 weeks ago
No.   I was pretty clear.   The cake eaters can take their business elsewhere.   At this point they are only after this guy out of spite. Nothing more, nothing less.  

The baker is not complying with the Colorado equal service law.  

 
 
 
epistte
1.6.17  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.15    2 weeks ago
Except of course for Masterpiece Cakeshop v the Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the defendant.

So yeah, except for that one ......

What are we working on here?    Double, triple jeopardy?   Certainly in the philosophical sense.

The ruling was very narrow and the SCOTUS didn't address his denial of service, but only how he was treated by the state commission.  The question of denial of service because of his religious beliefs was kicked down the road, even though the Justices left a very strong statement about how they would rule at the bottom of the opinion. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.18  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @1.6.17    2 weeks ago

The ruling is the ruling ..... until such time they chose to revisit it.   If they ever do revisit it.   Until that time, people need to learn to deal with it.

Look, if this was even remotely equivalent to say segregated bathrooms or similar.   Where the plaintiffs DID NOT have another choice and in this case they had MANY other choices, i would be on your side.

But that is not the case.   Not even close.

It's not even remotely the same thing.   No matter how hard some try to spin it.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.19  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.15    2 weeks ago
Except of course for Masterpiece Cakeshop v the Colorado Civil Rights Commission where the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the defendant.
So yeah, except for that one ......

That opinion wasn't based on public accommodations protections, or anti- discrimination laws, it was NARROWLY decided on religious neutrality. 

FAIL. 

What are we working on here? Double, triple jeopardy? It certainly is in the philosophical sense.

Actually, it isn't. A different event with a different plaintiff. 

Another fail...

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.20  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.18    2 weeks ago
The ruling is the ruling ..... until such time they chose to revisit it. If they ever do revisit it. Until that time, people need to learn to deal with it.

Yet you were blathering about double jeopardy. Sheesh.

Look, if this was even remotely equivalent to say segregated bathrooms or similar. Where the plaintiffs DID NOT have another choice and in this case they had MANY other choices, i would be on your side. But that is not the case. Not even close.
It's not even remotely the same thing. No matter how hard some try to spin it.

Why do you base you position on whether there is another choice of where to eat, piss or order a cake? The LAW does NOT and hasn't for over 50 years. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.21  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.18    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
1.6.22  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.18    2 weeks ago
The ruling is the ruling ..... until such time they chose to revisit it.   If they ever do revisit it.   Until that time, people need to learn to deal with it.

Look, if this was even remotely equivalent to say segregated bathrooms or similar.   Where the plaintiffs DID NOT have another choice and in this case they had MANY other choices, i would be on your side.

But that is not the case.   Not even close.

It's not even remotely the same thing.   No matter how hard some try to spin it.

The SCOTUS never addressed his claim that he has the right to deny service because if his religious beliefs. If you would reading the decision you would know that. They only addressed how he was treated by the state when someone on the commission referred to him as a religious bigot.   The main issue is still unaddressed, so he cannot violate the Colorado state law the protects LGBT people from discrimination in a public business. That law still stands.

The fact that there are other bakeries is irrelevant. There were other BBQ joints that Maurice Bessinger's black customers could have frequented but that didn't give him the right to deny equal service to whites because of his religious bigotry. Jack Phillips cannot deny service to people because of his religious beliefs and nobody has said or ruled that he can.   The SCOTUS has never ruled that bigotry in public business is part of a person's religious rights.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.23  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.14    2 weeks ago

I thought it was obvious and well known by now. This isn't exactly new.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.24  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.6.19    2 weeks ago
That opinion wasn't based on public accommodations protections, or anti- discrimination laws, it was NARROWLY decided on religious neutrality.  FAIL. 

Lol, narrowly decided 7-2?   So what is a solid majority ..... 6-3?

Once again,  you are spot off.   One wonders if you ever get tired of being wrong.   I guess not.

 

Actually, it isn't. A different event with a different plaintiff. 

Another fail...

Once again, a swing and a miss.   It is exactly the same thing with a different plaintiff.    Say fail all you want.   It changes nothing and only your crackpot buddies are slain by it.

This case is just another sad assed attempt to simply hassle a man who is not of like mind with some sanctimonious prick who has a chip on their shoulder and who could easily go somewhere else but instead chooses to be a prick to his fellow man.

Not a surprise i guess that some here would support such a-holery.

SOSDD

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.25  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.24    2 weeks ago

Sounds like Philips chooses to be a prick to his fellow man.  A bigoted prick at that.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.26  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.23    2 weeks ago

Yes, the Public Accommodation law is.   The law of free consequences?

Not so much

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.27  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.25    2 weeks ago

Nah the bigoted pricks are the cake eaters.

Sanctimonious bigoted cake eaters at that.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.28  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.24    2 weeks ago
Lol, narrowly decided 7-2?   So what is a solid majority ..... 6-3?

Narrowly decided on the ISSUE of religious neutrality. It's a legal 'term or art'. Sheesh. 

One again, you are spot off. One wonders if you ever get tired of being wrong. I guess not.

One wonders if you ever get tired of making obtuse comments. 

It is exactly the same thing with a different plaintiff.

So it isn't 'double jeopardy' IS IT? 

Say fail all you want.

Thanks but your permission isn't required. 

It changes nothing and only your crackpot buddies are slain by it.

WTF are you talking about? 

It just another sad assed attempt to simply hassle a man who is not of like mind with with some sanctimonious prick who has a chip on their shoulder and who could easily go somewhere else but instead choses to be a prick to his fellow man.

So you didn't mean that whole thingy about 'revisiting'. Got ya. 

Not a surprise i guess that you would support such a-holery.

Not a surprise that you would devolve to making things personal. Well done. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.6.29  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.24    2 weeks ago
Lol, narrowly decided 7-2?   So what is a solid majority ..... 6-3? Once again,  you are spot off.   One wonders if you ever get tired of being wrong.   I guess not.

They were only concerning themselves with the if the Colorado commission acted with religious bigotry when Jack Phillps was investigated and prosecuted. The Supreme Court didn't take up the question if religious discrimination was constitutionally permissible. That is why this decision is referred to as narrowly defined.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.30  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.27    2 weeks ago

How moronic

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.31  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.6.28    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.32  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.26    2 weeks ago
Yes, the Public Accommodation law is.  

That's the one that matters.

The law of free consequences?

Please specify where that particular law is codified into state and/or federal law. Thanks

 
 
 
epistte
1.6.33  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.27    2 weeks ago
Nah the bigoted pricks are the cake eaters. Sanctimonious bigoted cake eaters at that.

Are those bigoted prickish cake eaters like the uppity blacks that had the arrogance to eat at whites-only lunch counters and attend whites-only schools?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.34  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.26    2 weeks ago

What the hell is the law of free consequences?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.35  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @1.6.33    2 weeks ago

LOL .... yeah that's what this is ......... NOT!

Ironic.   Hatred and bigotry just oozes out of your last post.   How dare that uppity cake maker have religious beliefs that don't goosestep in exact unison with the LGBT community.

How dare they!   I mean really ..... walking down the street and taking your business someplace that really it wants like most people do is beyond reason in cases like this.   So just sue him endlessly.   Show how the LGBT community loves its neighbors.

The nerve of that cake maker

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.36  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.34    2 weeks ago

Ask Gordy.  

He's the one who brought it up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.37  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.35    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.38  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.36    2 weeks ago
'Yes, the Public Accommodation law is.   The law of free consequences? Not so much'

No, you did.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.39  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.37    2 weeks ago

Nope spot on .... that fact that YOU disagree is only more empirical evidence that it is spot on.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.40  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.38    2 weeks ago

Wrong again ..... sadly it seems you never tire of being wrong.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.41  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.40    2 weeks ago
Wrong again ..... sadly it seems you never tire of being wrong.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.42  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.39    2 weeks ago

No, moronic.

Empirical evidence?

Again, moronic.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.6.43  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.35    2 weeks ago

The nerve indeed.  He’s an all American hero.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.44  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.36    2 weeks ago

No, I brought up accommodation laws. You're the one who mentioned the law of free consequences,  in your post 1.6.26.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.6.45  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.44    2 weeks ago
'No, I brought up accommodation laws. You're the one who mentioned the law of free consequences,  in your post 1.6.26.'
jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif
Sadly it seems he never tires of being wrong.
That he disagreed is only more empirical evidence that it is spot on.
jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.46  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.6.41    2 weeks ago
Wrong again ..... sadly it seems you never tire of being wrong.

Wrong again ..... sadly it seems you never tire of being wrong.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.47  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @1.6.44    2 weeks ago

Nope.   Your post 1.6.10.   A comment i clearly questioned in post 1.6.11

While the baker can violate the law free of consequences.

Ready to man up and admit it yet?   This should be good .....

Feel free to correct the others here who are wrong on this as well.    Some of them seem equally confused about it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.6.48  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.47    2 weeks ago

I asked whether he could violate the law, specifically public accommodation laws, free of consequences.  I said nothing about some "law of consequences." You're the one who brought that particular "law" up, not me. So either you're the one confused or you just want to play semantics. Which is it?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.49  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.6.47    2 weeks ago
A comment i clearly questioned in post 1.6.11

Wherein you said:

The law of free consequences? I admit i'm not a lawyer but still ..... thats a new one.

Which misstates his comment, perhaps intentionally for effect. You acknowledge that Gordy's statement was: 

While the baker can violate the law free of consequences.

Why do you continue to make a strawman argument? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.6.50  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.6.49    2 weeks ago

Well, i could have sworn it was worded the way i wrote it.  

I did not intentionally misquote it, i just misread it .... my apologies to any aggrieved parties.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Ender
2.1  Ender  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago

Doncha know, it's the elusive 11th commandment. Thou shall not bake for homosexuals.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @2.1    2 weeks ago

'Doncha know, it's the elusive 11th commandment. Thou shall not bake for homosexuals.'

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Hilarious!

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Always a classic

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
2.1.4  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

That and other sin was not allowed.  Just because people do things doesn’t make it ok.  The Bible records a number of sins people did and the price paid for them.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
The Bible records a number of sins people did and the price paid for them.  

Yet in all my time on this Earth, I have never seen even one public stoning. Why is that Xx? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Yet in all my time on this Earth, I have never seen even one public stoning. Why is that Xx? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.10  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
That and other sin was not allowed.  Just because people do things doesn’t make it ok.  The Bible records a number of sins people did and the price paid for them.

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.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
You don't live in a Muslim country.

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.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.11    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
I didn't think we were talking about ancient history. 

No Buzz, we're talking about religious based practices and WHAT they are based on.  

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.

You're the one that brought up where I LIVE Buzz. 

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.

So you don't care about religious laws where you LIVE but you do care about them in 'Muslim countries'. Got ya. 

Besides, I was addressing YOUR statement that you never saw one stoning so don't bother to deflect and diffuse.

No deflection or diffusion at all in my comment Buzz. Though I did cogently addressed YOURS. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.13    2 weeks ago
I only addressed Dulay's comment that he had never seen a public stoning.

Which was in direct reply to the seeders comment that the bible records 'the price paid for' sin. 

I was not talking about ancient history so forget the bible verses. 

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...

 
 
 
arkpdx
3  arkpdx    2 weeks ago

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? 

 
 
 
epistte
3.1  epistte  replied to  arkpdx @3    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  epistte @3.1    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.2  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

The bottom line...

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
Every case since has been a set up, especially the one that caused the Supreme Court decision.

That's false. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.5    2 weeks ago
You have no idea of what you are talking about.

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. 

The two gay guys from the East Coast flew into DIA

They are from Colorado Greg. 

FAIL

, 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.

Phillip's bakery was recommended by the reception planner.

Your claim is utter bullshit. 

Why else is all this piling on gone on since that is occurring? Harrassment? Punishment?

Because the fucker keeps discriminating against people. 

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.

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. 

 
 
 
katrix
3.2  katrix  replied to  arkpdx @3    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @3.2    2 weeks ago
Racists tried that argument to keep from having to serve blacks.

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.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.2  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.3  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
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.

That is exactly what Maurice Bessinger did.  The federal courts didn't but that racist argument then.

But that’s difficult. Lloyd’s father, the late Maurice Bessinger, once made politics a part of every plate of barbecue he sold. The markers of Bessinger’s segregationist thinking are gone now: The pro-slavery tracts he offered at the front door, some claiming African slaves “blessed the Lord” for slavery. The massive Confederate flag that once flapped over the parking lot. The smaller flags on bottles of his sauce.
.

Bessinger also advanced a religious freedom argument. In the Old Testament, he argued, “God commanded the Hebrew not to mix with any other race.” Being forced to serve African-American customers, Bessinger maintained, violated his right to free religion and “contravenes the will of God.”

Judge Simons ruled that Bessinger could not refuse black patrons at his sandwich shop, since its customers primarily ate on premises, but he allowed discrimination at the five Piggie Park drive-ins, since over half of their customers ordered food to go. The restaurants, he reasoned, were not “principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises” and therefore not subject to the Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in April 1967 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, ordering Bessinger’s five drive-ins to integrate, too.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
And many of them used the story of Ham in the bible to justify their conviction that black people are inferior to white people.

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

Bessinger was off his rocker

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.6  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
Bessinger was off his rocker

Maurice Bessinger is no different than Jack Phillips. They both attend Baptist churches.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.2.6    2 weeks ago
They both attend Baptist churches.

Oh, there it is....that's the link

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.2.8  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

Indeed he was.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.2.8    2 weeks ago

Once someone believes that slaves were blessed to be slaves, it's time to place a call to Bellevue!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
Bessinger was off his rocker

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:

They are also enjoined from failing or refusing to sell food, meals, or other merchandise and to provide services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations to Negro patrons at said establishment upon the same basis and upon the same conditions that they are made available to patrons and customers of other races.

Colorado includes sexual orientation in their non-discrimination statute. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.11  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.2.8    2 weeks ago
Indeed he was.

In what way Xx? He based his discrimination on the same book Phillips bases his. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2.10    2 weeks ago
Why? He based his discrimination on the same book that 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!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.12    2 weeks ago

This may take a while

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.12    2 weeks ago
Are you really going to try and make that case? 

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...

Simply to try and contradict everything I say?

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. 

Ok, show me were the Bible or the Baptist denomination says "Slaves are blessed to be slaves".......I want to see those specific words!

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? 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.13    2 weeks ago

Posting fact based comments sometimes do...

That's why it's frustrating that some seeders lock their seeds after they get the last word. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

So you can't back up that outrageous anti-religious claim?

Done!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2.15    2 weeks ago
That's why it's frustrating that some seeders lock their seeds after they get the last word. 

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.


 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.16    2 weeks ago
So you can't back up that outrageous anti-religious claim?

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:

Bessinger also advanced a religious freedom argument. In the Old Testament, he argued, “God commanded the Hebrew not to mix with any other race.” Being forced to serve African-American customers, Bessinger maintained, violated his right to free religion and “contravenes the will of God.”

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.  

Done!

Long ago. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.17    2 weeks ago
A raucous argument devoid of proof dosen't cut it.

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. 

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.20  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.9    2 weeks ago

The idea that he believed that people were blessed to be slaves is no crazier than many other parts of the Bible.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  epistte @3.2.20    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.22  epistte  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.21    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
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,

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.

It's about persecuting a man for his religious beliefs.

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.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be re-solved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an openmarket.

The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is re-versed.

It is so ordered.
 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  epistte @4.1    2 weeks ago
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? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  epistte @4.1    2 weeks ago

All the indignities are being thrust on Phillips, since all these visits to his store were planned with malice ahead of time.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @4.1    2 weeks ago
The SCOTUS left a very strong message when they decided this case on a narrow context.

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.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.4  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Actually what they ruled was they found bias in the system. Not necessarily for the baker himself.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.5  epistte  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
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.

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. 

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.6  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
All the indignities are being thrust on Phillips, since all these visits to his store were planned with malice ahead of time.

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?  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Bullshit. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  epistte @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
Where is the evidence that he was asked to decorate the wedding cake in any sexualized manner? 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.8    2 weeks ago
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. 

There is no evidence of any of that. 

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.

That isn't true. Phillips refuses to produce a wedding cake of ANY kind for a 'same sex' wedding. 

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.

It's not funny, it's the only non-discriminatory sollution. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
'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.' 

It seems some folks just make up shit as they go along.  

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.11  epistte  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.8    2 weeks ago
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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.2  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago

We don't agree very often, but here we are simpatico. 

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.

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @4.2    2 weeks ago
I do know these cases (hunted or not) will continue until the rights of LGBTQ are respected.

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.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago
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.
That's exactly what has been going on, all one has to do is to examine the details of this sorry saga.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago
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.

Well, we do live in dumb times!

 
 
 
lady in black
5  lady in black    2 weeks ago

Maybe if the faux christian STOPPED breaking the law he would be left alone

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @5    2 weeks ago

True dat.  These so-called 'christians' are always playing the victim.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @5    2 weeks ago

Who has determined he broke the law?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

'Will They Ever Leave Him Alone?'  Poor, poor so called 'christian', the perpetual 'victim' of his own bigotry.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
7  Sunshine    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1  Sparty On  replied to  Sunshine @7    2 weeks ago

Haters gotta hate.   It's what they do .....

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Sunshine @7    2 weeks ago

This is doing more harm to the happy gay "community" than they realize, and the popular support is solidly for Phillips.

 
 
 
Sunshine
7.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    2 weeks ago

Nobody likes a bully, regardless of their intentions.

 
 
 
epistte
7.2.2  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    2 weeks ago
This is doing more harm to the happy gay "community" than they realize, and the popular support is solidly for Phillips.

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.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.2.3  WallyW  replied to  epistte @7.2.2    2 weeks ago

Knowing his beliefs , why do the militant gay bullies keep harassing him?

 
 
 
epistte
7.2.4  epistte  replied to  WallyW @7.2.3    2 weeks ago
Knowing his beliefs , why do the militant gay bullies keep harassing him?

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. 

 
 
 
katrix
7.3  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @7    2 weeks ago
This is what people full of hate do. 

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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
7.3.1  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @7.3    2 weeks ago

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. 

rather than the people who are trying to discriminate against others.

I find it interesting that you see words that are not written. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.3    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
katrix
7.3.3  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.2    2 weeks ago
Many of us operate on the age old principle of taking our business where it is wanted and appreciated.

Just as black people were expected to do decades ago.  I'm sorry you think that's reasonable.

 
 
 
epistte
7.3.4  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.2    2 weeks ago
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.

People said the same thing about black people trying to patronize whites-only businesses. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.3.3    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
katrix
7.3.6  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.1    2 weeks ago
This particular case has been dismissed before

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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
7.3.7  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @7.3.6    2 weeks ago

Did you read the article?  It is about this case....which I was referring to.

The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Denver District Court on behalf of Autumn Scardina by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh..
 
 
 
katrix
7.3.8  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.5    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.9  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.3.8    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.5    2 weeks ago
You'll need to do better than that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.9    2 weeks ago
As clearly pointed out, your comparison is not valid in the context of this discussion.   Not valid at all.

 
 
 
katrix
7.3.12  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.7    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.13  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.10    2 weeks ago
You'll need to do better than that.

You'll need to do better than that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.14  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.11    2 weeks ago
As clearly pointed out, your comparison is not valid in the context of this discussion.   Not valid at all.

As clearly pointed out, your comparison is not valid in the context of this discussion.   Not valid at all.

 
 
 
katrix
7.3.15  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.9    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.3.16  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @7.3.15    2 weeks ago

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Hope you have a great day.

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
7.3.17  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @7.3.16    2 weeks ago

You, too.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8  Dismayed Patriot    2 weeks ago

"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?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.1  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1    2 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Ender
8.1.2  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1    2 weeks ago
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

They did? I never read that conclusion.

 
 
 
epistte
8.1.3  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1    2 weeks ago
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.

What exactly was the homosexual theme on a wedding cake?

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  epistte @8.1.3    2 weeks ago
'What exactly was the homosexual theme on a wedding cake?'

You'll never get an answer because there was none.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Ender @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
They did?

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.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1    2 weeks ago
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.

"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."

https://www.courthousenews.com/trans-woman-serves-up-lawsuit-to-colorado-baker/

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.

 
 
 
epistte
8.1.7  epistte  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.4    2 weeks ago
You'll never get an answer because there was none.  

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.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.8  katrix  replied to  Ender @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
 
 
MrFrost
9  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

So they have 100% religious freedom, now they are crying that they can't use their religion to be bigots? 

Wow. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MrFrost @9    2 weeks ago
now they are crying that they can't use their religion to be bigots? 

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.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/brown-v-board-turns-65-and-trump-picks-wont-say-its-right

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-judicial-nominees-brown-v-board-of-educaton-precedent-refuse-questions.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/17/trump-judicial-nominees-dodge-law-values-brown-board-education-column/3695469002/

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.

 
 
 
Kavika
10  Kavika     2 weeks ago

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. 

  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11  The Magic Eight Ball    2 weeks ago

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 :)

 
 
 
epistte
11.1  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11    2 weeks ago
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.

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.

the courts have ruled in favor of religious liberty before and my bet is they do it again.

When did the SCOTUS ever rule in favor of religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate in a public business?

cheers

Whatever turns your crank........

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @11.1    2 weeks ago

I said "the courts" not scotus.

but to answer your question anyway/

When did the SCOTUS

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...

http://msgfocus.com/files/amf_convert/workspace_42/Contraceptive_Mandate_Order_Granting_Summary_Judgment__granting_34_Motion_for_Injunction_6.5.2019_CLEAN_.pdf

the Supreme Court held the Contraceptive Mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., as applied to three for-profit
corporations. 573 U.S. at 688–91. Hobby Lobby was a defining decision for the civil rights of
religious employers.

 

and the U.S district courts final ruling again in favor of religious liberty

http://msgfocus.com/files/amf_convert/workspace_42/Contraceptive_Mandate_Order_Granting_Summary_Judgment__granting_34_Motion_for_Injunction_6.5.2019_CLEAN_.pdf

SO ORDERED on this 5th day of June, 2019.

......The Court DECLARES that the Contraceptive Mandate, codified at 42 U.S.C.
§ 300gg–13(a)(4), 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv), 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv), and 26
C.F.R. § 54.9815–2713(a)(1)(iv), violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to
the Employer Class members. The Court further DECLARES that the Contraceptive Mandate
violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the extent it prevents the Individual Class
members from purchasing health insurance that excludes coverage or payments for contraceptive
methods that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

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 :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

She wasn't talking about the 'courts' she was talking about the SCOTUS

cheers jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

Who gives a fuck what the RFRA thinks/does?  They're a bunch of uptight so called religious pricks who like to trample on women's rights and the LGBTQ.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11    2 weeks ago
'I am weird like that'

That is the most factual thing you have ever posted here.  

cheers jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
12  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    2 weeks ago

This is such a stupid topic. Why would you want a cake from someone who doesn't like you or want to bake you a cake?

 
 
 
epistte
12.1  epistte  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @12    2 weeks ago

Where do pansexual giraffes buy celebration foods?

 
 
 
Sunshine
12.2  Sunshine  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @12    2 weeks ago

I know...why does anyone want to give their money/business to someone they think is a bigot?

Does seem stupid.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @12.2    2 weeks ago
I know...why does anyone want to give their money/business to someone they think is a bigot?

If only they would place a sign that says 'This business is run by a bigot', life would be so much easier.../s

 
 
 
Sunshine
12.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @12.2.1    2 weeks ago
If only they would place a sign that says 'This business is run by a bigot', life would be so much easier..

Well, they already new he was when they ordered the cake....so why need a sign?  But insist on him doing it anyways...seems they want to give their money to what they perceive as a bigot.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @12.2.2    2 weeks ago
Well, they already new he was when they ordered the cake....so why need a sign? 

If by 'they' you mean the gay couple that he denied service to, that is false. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @12.2.3    2 weeks ago

So are you honestly trying to say this gay couple didn't know who is was?

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.4    2 weeks ago
So are you honestly trying to say this gay couple didn't know who is was?

I'm not 'trying to say' it, I AM saying it. 

Burst your bubble? 

There is documented evidence that the reception planner recommended Phillips' bakery to them. They had NO knowledge of him prior to that.

It's not like Phillips advertised his religious animus prior to that. Phillips lawyers NEVER made an argument during the entire process that his religious animus was common knowledge. 

It's all in the Commission and court documents. They are readily available online. Go read them. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @12.2.5    2 weeks ago

Documented perhaps.   Honest and genuine?   Doubtful but perhaps they are the only three people in the gay community in that region that don't know who he is.

Hard to believe any of them didn't know who he was.   Especially the wedding planner.   This has setup written all over it.

The LGBT community is clearly and openly gunning for Phillips.   Who says they can't do it in a subversive way.

Nah, i don't buy it.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.6    2 weeks ago
Documented perhaps.   Honest and genuine?   Doubtful but perhaps they are the only three people in the gay community in that region that don't know who he is.

Documented absolutely. Sworn depositions and testimony .

Doubtful but perhaps they are the only three people in the gay community in that region that don't know who he is. Hard to believe any of them didn't know who he was. 

The first case started in 2012. As I said, there is NO evidence that Phillips was targeted in 2012 and Phillips NEVER claimed that he was in any proceeding in that case. 

Especially the wedding planner.

How did you come to that unfounded conclusion? 

BTW, you were certain that the couple targeted Phillips and now you're implicating the wedding planner. 

The irony is that the ONLY 'conspiracy' uncovered in the case was Phillips and his wife deciding to violate the Colorado law right after it was passed. 

This has setup written all over it.

So despite all evidence to the contrary, you believe that based on WHAT? 

The LGBT community is clearly and openly gunning for Phillips.  

If they were, one would think that there would be a plethora of complaints against Phillips. 

The gay couple filed a complaint to the Commission and the Commission filed against Phillips. The gay couple NEVER sued Phillips. As I said, I don't have enough info on the case in the seed to opine about it. 

Who says they can't do it in a subversive way.

No one. Do you have anything other than a conspiracy theory to indicate that 'they' are? 

Nah, i don't buy it.

Again, despite all evidence to the contrary. Either bring some FACTS to the table or just admit that your animus guides your position. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.8  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @12.2.7    2 weeks ago

You better check yourself first.   I'm not the one who has animus here.

I simply don't believe they didn't know who he was.   Regardless of any testimony, depositions, etc, etc.   People lie every day in those things and for a lot lesser reasons than this one.

It isn't credible, not in the least.   Unless of course they've been on another planet for the last few years.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.8    2 weeks ago
You better check yourself first.  

Why?

I'm not the one who has animus here.

Then what are you basing your positions on? 

I simply don't believe they didn't know who he was. 

Why not? Are you claiming that in 2012 Phillips was some kind of celebrity that they should have recognized on sight? 

  Regardless of any testimony, depositions, etc, etc.   People lie every day in those things and for a lot lesser reasons than this one.

So you're saying that no amount of evidence will alter your 'closely held beliefs' even though those beliefs are utterly unsubstantiated. I can't help but wonder why the fuck you bother discussing the issue then. 

It isn't credible, not in the least.  

Why not? 

Unless of course they've been on another planet for the last few years.

Again, are you claiming that in 2012 Phillips was some kind of celebrity that they should have recognized on sight?

How about you post even ONE article about Phillips telling the world that he didn't bake 'same sex wedding cakes' from before July 2012. I'll wait...

 
 
 
arkpdx
12.2.10  arkpdx  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.6    2 weeks ago

I sure it was justa coincidence  that the same lawyers  that lost twice before are representing number 3. /S

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.11  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  arkpdx @12.2.10    2 weeks ago

A minor little detail.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.12  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.6    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.13  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sunshine @12.2    2 weeks ago

It’s all about raw power and control over the lives of others.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.14  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @12.2.10    2 weeks ago

Phillips has the same pro bono lawyers on this case too...

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.2.14    2 weeks ago

Which makes a whole lot more sense than the plaintiffs having the same lawyer.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.16  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.13    2 weeks ago

Isn’t it amazing what the secular progressives can say in general about evangelical Christians and what evangelical Christians aren’t allowed to say about the secular progressive protected LGBT community?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.17  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.6    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.18  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.15    2 weeks ago

Phillips has very high end lawyers on his behalf who are used to winning cases before the US Supreme Court.  They are from the Alliance Defending Freedom, an awesome group defending religious liberty that I can’t possibly say enough good things about that is a great source of good in America.  

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.2.15    2 weeks ago

Not every law firm has expertise in discrimination litigation. One would think that the fact that the most respected and experienced lawyers accepted her case would be met with at least some level of respect. 

Oh and BTFW, at least she's paying the bills...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.2.20  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @12.2.19    2 weeks ago

She, her case, her position are worthy of no respect whatsoever.  She’s simply engaged in the targeting and persecution of Christians and our beliefs.  

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.21  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.2.20    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.22  Sparty On  replied to  arkpdx @12.2.10    2 weeks ago

Yeah, why anyone from that community would want to give this guy any business is beyond all reason at this point.    It’s clearly only a vendetta.

Small people with small minds I guess.

 
 
 
epistte
12.2.23  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.22    2 weeks ago
Yeah, why anyone from that community would want to give this guy any business is beyond all reason at this point.    It’s clearly only a vendetta. Small people with small minds I guess.

Your argument would equally support the existence of whites-only business because why would a black person seek to give them their money. Every argument in support of Jack Phillps and his argument of religious discrimination equally supports racists and white-only businesses.  Was there a vendetta against Maurine Bessinger because he didn't want to serve blacks at his BBQ joint, despite the Civil Rights Act ban on racism in public business? Should blacks and interracial people have respected his religious views and went to another BBQ place instead?  

Do you support racists the right to deny equal service to black and interracial people in public business because of their relgious beliefs? 

"I'm a Christian and my Christian beliefs are you don't do interracial marriage. That's the way I was brought up and that's the way I believe," Cleveland declared. He then insisted he wasn't racist, just anti-race mixing. "I have black friends, I hired black people. But when it comes to all this stuff you see on TV, when you see blacks and whites together, it makes my blood boil because that's just not the way a Christian is supposed to live."
 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.24  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @12.2.23    2 weeks ago

You always go back and look for equivalence with the segregations of the black community decades ago.    It just isn’t there.     Not the first time i’ve pointed this out to you but evidently your emotions won’t let you see it for what it is.

One baker does not equate to all bakers.    No matter how hard you try to rationalize that it does.    You are all for freedom and liberty as long as it’s your idea of liberty and not someone else’s.   Careful what you ask for ......

This is really simple.    Exercise your freedom of choice.    Take your business somewhere that wants it.    Unlike decades ago for blacks, most businesses will actually take it.    It’s not rational taking it where you know it is not wanted.

 
 
 
epistte
12.2.25  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.24    2 weeks ago
You always go back and look for equivalence with the segregations of the black community decades ago.    It just isn’t there.     Not the first time i’ve pointed this out to you but evidently your emotions won’t let you see it for what it is.

The arguments and goals are the very same. The only thing that has changed is that black people are not the targets and LGBT people are. 

One baker does not equate to all bakers.    No matter how hard you try to rationalize that it does.    You are all for freedom and liberty as long as it’s your idea of liberty and not someone else’s.   Careful what you ask for ......

Religious discrimination in a business is very different from a person's actions as a private person.  You seem to not make that critical distinction.  The baker can be a Klan member in his private life but when he voluntarily opens a business that is required to serve the public then he must serve all of the public equally, regardless of his religious or political beliefs. 

This is really simple.    Exercise your freedom of choice.    Take your business somewhere that wants it.    Unlike decades ago for blacks, most businesses will actually take it.    It’s not rational taking it where you know it is not wanted.

Why would a black person seek to patronize a whites-only business when they knew that they not welcome?  This is the very same argument that you are making because you think that a business owner should have the right to hide behind their religious bigotry and pick and choose who they will and will not serve. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.2.26  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @12.2.25    2 weeks ago

Again, it’s not the same.    

The discrimination in this case isn’t institutional.    It’s one baker in Denver.     That now appears to getting targeted by the LGBT community when they know damn well where he stands.  

The discrimination you speak of was institutional.    White businesses back then that served blacks were the exception not the rule.    Not even close to the same today for the LGBT community looking for a wedding cake.

Doubtful you’ll ever see it that way with the huge chip on you shoulders so i’ll Just leave it at that.    No point taking this any further.

 
 
 
epistte
12.2.27  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @12.2.26    one week ago
Again, it’s not the same.

There is an obvious pattern between Jack Phillps and Maurice Bessinger. They are both conservative white Protestant Christian males who are members of a Baptist church.  They both own businesses that are required to serve the public but they also claim that their religious views exempt them from those requirements when serving a racial or social minority that they find reprehensible.   In many cases, they have used the same legal arguments that the Bible supersedes secular law. 

The discrimination in this case isn’t institutional.    It’s one baker in Denver.     That now appears to getting targeted by the LGBT community when they know damn well where he stands.  

The state of Colorado has a statewide LGBT protection ordinance and he seems to think that his conservative religious beliefs give him the ability to ignore that law, but he is very wrong. His religious beliefs do not exempt him from secular law because we could not have a Constitution if that were the situation. All anyone would have to do is to create their own religion that says that whatever law in question does not apply to them because of their sincere religious beliefs and we would have anarchy if the courts would permit him to ignore the law because of his religious beliefs.    Jack Phillps and others like him either need to start obeying the law or find a new line of work because people are not going to give a religious bigot a pass on obeying the law.  

The discrimination you speak of was institutional.    White businesses back then that served blacks were the exception not the rule.    Not even close to the same today for the LGBT community looking for a wedding cake.

The Civil Rights act set a national standard that most people understood that even though LGBT people aren't mentioned verbatim the courts are not going to permit religious conservatives to deny them equal service.  This could have been settled a year ago but the SCOTUS decided to kick this legal can down the road by ruling on only a part of the situation at hand instead of making a sweeping decision when they had a chance to do so.

Doubtful you’ll ever see it that way with the huge chip on you shoulders so i’ll Just leave it at that.    No point taking this any further.

He is not being persecuted because he refuses to obey relevant secular laws. People are not going to let him continue to do this because he wants to play the victim card. It isn't mature and it isn't funny to permit him to be an exception to the law,.he is expected to act like an adult and follow all relevant laws in his business or find a new line of work that is more suitable to his religious beliefs.  To permit him to carry on as he seeks to do, despite the law,  sets a very dangerous constitutional precedent that others may choose to follow when they also do not like the law. 

In his mind, Jack Phillips probably thinks that he is taking a great moral stand against homosexuality because while the SCOTUS might have permitted LGBT marriage in 2015 he thinks that he is likely convinced that he can cite his conservative religious beliefs as a reason not to serve them or to not accept the Obergfell v. Hodges SCOTUS decision as US law.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @12    2 weeks ago

it’s all about their power and control over the lives and beliefs of others. Nothing more.  

 
 
 
epistte
12.4.1  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4    2 weeks ago
it’s all about their power and control over the lives and beliefs of others. Nothing more.  

If you cannot bake a cake and not feel threatened by the customer then you have the problem and not the customer. Nobody said that you have to like them or agree with them. Just bake the cake like an adult and take their money.

Is he equally threatened by a birthday cake for an atheist or a wedding cake for an interracial couple? They are also prohibited in your bible. 

What about interracial marriage? Deuteronomy 7:1-6 tells the Israelites to destroy all the inhabitants of the Canaan land and not to intermarry with them because they would "turn your sons away from following Me, that they may serve other gods." The same key concern of 2 Corinthians 6:14 is again expressed here. Moses' wife was of another race and in Numbers 12:1-15 Aaron and Miriam were punished for criticizing this interracial marriage. The book of Ruth tells a delightful story of a foreigner who became part of the lineage of Christ. The harlot, Rahab, also of another nation, is included in the lineage of Christ as recorded in Matthew 1. Colossians 3:11 makes it clear that from God's perspective all are one in Christ.

Deuteronomy 13:6

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God,

.

Paul also writes, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers … for what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” 2 Corinthians 6:13-15.
 
 
 
Dulay
12.4.2  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4    2 weeks ago

I'm surprised to see you so self reflective Xx. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.3  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @12.4.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
12.4.4  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.3    2 weeks ago
deleted for context [ph]

Stop with the false religious persecution claims because nobody is trying to censor, coerce or silence bible literalists. If you choose to open a public business then you are required to follow all the relevant secular laws. If you don't like that idea then do not open a business that serves the general public. It is just that easy.

Nobody would care of jack Phillps dressed as Jesus Christ or Noah when he baked the wedding cakes, just as long as he wore a hair net.  His religious beliefs only apply to himself and cannot be used to discriminate against his customers when he operates a business that is open to the public. He could nail himself to a cross at night instead of going home if he so chooses.

I have asked you many times and yet you refuse to answer when Jesus taught his followers to treat others in this manner as Jack Phillips and other religious conservatives desire to do. Why is it that you will not answer this question?  If what you want to do is such a core Christian teaching then why can't you find a passage in the gospels that supports it?

Luke 6:31 New International Version

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @12.4.4    2 weeks ago

And many times I have answered your “question”

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.6  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @12.4.4    2 weeks ago

Really?  Then why was the post you are responding to deleted then if they are not trying to censor our point of view?  

 
 
 
Dulay
12.4.7  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.6    2 weeks ago
Then why was the post you are responding to deleted then if they are not trying to censor our point of view?

The reason is right there on the comment. Sweeping generalization.

It's not a censorship of your POV, it's a censorship of your statement about a whole group of people. Try harder...

BTW, why do you incessantly pretend that your comments represent more than your own opinion? 

 
 
 
epistte
12.4.8  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.6    2 weeks ago
Really?  Then why was the post you are responding to deleted then if they are not trying to censor our point of view?  

It was deleted by Perrie because she felt that is was an unwarranted sweeping generalization. I am not a moderator so I did not censor you just because I am a nasty amoral secular progressive. . Your religious beliefs do not exempt you from obeying the TOS, just as they do not exempt you from obeying secular law.  

 
 
 
epistte
12.4.9  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.5    2 weeks ago
And many times I have answered your “question”

I am not aware of any instance where you have addressed how a Christian can deny someone equal service, despite the teachings of Jesus in Luke 6:31. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.10  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Dulay @12.4.7    2 weeks ago

Anyone can label another persons personal opinion a sweeping generalization.  Such labeling does not make it so and it clearly was not.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
12.4.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.10    2 weeks ago

 There’s no differentiating between a sweeping generalization and any type of generalization, this is something that should’ve been addressed long ago in meta-but I agree with you it’s a real blackeye for this site 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.12  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @12.4.8    2 weeks ago

Well since you saw it, realize that I believe it, meant every word of it, and double down on my belief that what I said is the way it really is.  I make no apology to you or anyone anywhere for what I said or how I said it.   

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.13  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Freedom Warrior @12.4.11    2 weeks ago

agreed.  It’s mostly used as a tool to censor religious conservatives thoughts and our expression of what we really think.  It makes one question the advertising slogan here “speak your mind” and what it really means and for who.  

 
 
 
Dulay
12.4.14  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.10    2 weeks ago
Anyone can label another persons personal opinion a sweeping generalization.  

We're not talking about 'anyone' here Xx. We're talking about the mods. 

Such labeling does not make it so and it clearly was not.  

I read it, it was. 

 
 
 
epistte
12.4.15  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.13    2 weeks ago
agreed.  It’s mostly used as a tool to censor religious conservatives thoughts and our expression of what we really think.  It makes one question the advertising slogan here “speak your mind” and what it really means and for who.  

Nobody is keeping you here and you aren't paying to be a member. If you don't like the rules/TOS, then feel free to find a new forum that is closer to your ideas and beliefs. 

Censorship only applies to the government fining or jailing you for your speech, or limited what can be said, but you are not subject to either on this forum when a post is edited or deleted because you refuse to obey the TOS. Ergo, you are not being censored on Newstalkers. You are not the only person who has had a post edited, so nobody is persecuting you. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
12.4.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  epistte @12.4.15    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.17  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Freedom Warrior @12.4.16    2 weeks ago

removed for context

 
 
 
arkpdx
12.4.18  arkpdx  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.17    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.19  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @12.4.15    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.20  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  arkpdx @12.4.18    2 weeks ago

removed for context

 
 
 
epistte
12.4.21  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @12.4.19    2 weeks ago
Removed for context

The rules at that site do not apply here. If you don't like it here then leave, but don't claim that those rules should apply here.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
12.4.22  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @12.4.21    one week ago

I never said that.  I simply compared and contrasted.  But they don’t have a lot of ego inflating purple over there either.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ozzwald
Sunshine
livefreeordie
XXJefferson#51
Sparty On
Vic Eldred
JBB
Freefaller
Wishful_thinkin
The Magic Eight Ball

Kathleen
ArkansasHermit-too


72 visitors