Posted on 01/13/2015 8:07:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner has said that a Christian cake company's decision to invoke religious freedom rights to refuse to bake a pro-gay marriage cake is comparable to slavery and the perpetrators of the Holocaust.
Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal firm representing Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, said that such comparisons have "no place in civil society."
"Such alarming bias and hostility toward Jack's religious beliefs — and toward religion in general — has no place in civil society, let alone on a governmental commission that sits in judgment of whether he may follow his faith in how he runs his business," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco.
"Commissioner [Diann] Rice compared a private citizen who owns a small bakery to slaveholders and Holocaust perpetrators merely for asking that the state respect his right to free speech and free exercise of religion. Her comments suggest that others on the commission may share her view. This anti-religious bigotry undermines the integrity of the entire process and the commission's order as well."
Rice's comments apparently stem from a July 25, 2014, commission, which ordered Phillips to re-educate himself and his employees about marriage.
"I would also like to reiterate what we said in … the last meeting [concerning Jack Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust. … I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination," Rice said back then.
"And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use — to use their religion to hurt others."
Phillips was asked in 2012 by Charlie Craig and David Mullions to bake a cake for their wedding reception. Although the cake artist agreed to make them other baked items, he said that because of his Christian beliefs, he could not fulfill the request to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Craig and Mullions then filed a complaint with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union against Phillips, which led to the Colorado Civil Rights Division determining that Masterpiece Cakeshop had discriminated against the couple.
"The undisputed facts show that (Phillips) discriminated against complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage," wrote Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer in his decision in December 2013.
Phillips has since stopped baking any wedding cakes for either straight or same-sex couples as a result of the decision.
ADF legal counsel Nicolle Martin added that contrary to Rice's views, the U.S. Supreme Court has not found sexual orientation to be a status equivalent to race.
"The First Amendment plainly forbids this type of religious bias, which together with the commission's demonstrated misstatements of constitutional law raises serious questions about their judgment," Martin said.
"Jack should not be forced by the government, or by another citizen, to endorse or promote ideas with which he disagrees. But it's worse when he is forced to do so by one or more officials who make serious errors in their legal analysis and justify coercing the speech of a private citizen by citing their own hostility to religion."
And one wonders why the upcoming CW-II will occur?
Folks in that gubmit group should have their addresses published.
Let’s play ball like the lefties do.
And let the repercussions fall where they may.
People always seem to forget that second part.
RE: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .
The typical liberal answer is always — What if a White business establishment refuses to service black people on religious grounds?
I always have to wonder why someone would want your wedding cake baked by someone who doesn’t want to do it or their photos taken by someone who doesn’t want to be there?
There was just another case but reversed and that didn’t make the news.
These queers really like their cakes and chic fila.
They never really wanted that. They just wanted to create trouble.
Forcing homosexal lfestyles on those who wont mak a cake for tbem is a half baked idea.
Christian Cake Company’s Refusal to Bake Pro-Gay Marriage Cake Compared to Slavery, Holocaust
_____________________________________________
About a month or so ago I was reading some ABF (Angry Black Female) ranting on about how a stalk of cotton to a black person was the social equivalent of a Nazi Swastika to a Jew.
I say - let these idiots babble on with their inane pukeage. The more they talk - the more outlandish they appear.
Well....they do have a flair for the dramatic.
RE: I always have to wonder why someone would want your wedding cake baked by someone who doesn’t want to do it or their photos taken by someone who doesn’t want to be there?
Wonder NOT. It isn’t that they can’t find a willing business, it is that they want this to be a NATIONAL ISSUE so that the power of GOVERNMENT can FORCE people to recognize gay marriage whether they like it or not.
RE: Forcing homosexal lfestyles on those who wont mak a cake for tbem is a half baked idea.
I like the pun. Now, I wonder if someone can use a pun for photography...
Hitler’s Nazi were notorious homosexuals. The flamboyant logos, parades, uniforms, flags, etc., were all the making from a homosexual organization. The SA, which gave rise to the Nazi, were lead by and participated as homosexuals.
A pun for photography and homosexuals? We’ll see what develops.
gay baker refusing to make pro-traditional marriage cakes is no thing at all though
no such thing as equality under leftist rule
Private property—It’s mine to do with as I please. The concept of a “public accommodation” is a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Having said that, I’m not aware of any White, Christian-owned business denying service to anyone based on their race, at least in the last thirty or so years. If such happens, let the free market settle the question.
At the same time, I’ve read reports of Muslims in the US refusing service to people seen as violating tenets of the Muslim “faith.” Stories of Muslim cabbies refusing to transport individuals with service dogs and who are either carrying alcohol or have been drinking come to mind. My memory is that no liberals got too worked up over those incidents.
That would be deplorable and foolish but still constitutional. It would also be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now that states have laws similar to the CRA but include homosexuals as a protected class it clearly displays the inherent conflict between the 1st amendment and all "Civil Rights" laws which dictate the behavior of private citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.