Posted on 12/05/2017 7:29:46 AM PST by beaversmom
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case Tuesday on LGBT rights and whether same-sex couples can be discriminated against under the cover of religious freedom.
Jack Phillips is a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, in 2012. The couple was wed in Massachusetts and hosted a wedding reception in Denver one year before gay marriage was legal across the U.S. They wanted a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop, where Phillips decorates cakes for weddings, graduations and other celebrations. He refuses to design custom cakes for Halloween, divorce celebrations, bachelor parties or other events that conflict with his religious views.
"Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings," Phillips told Mullins and Craig when they explained their need. He suggested they pick another baked good or a pre-made cake, according to the law group representing him, Alliance Defending Freedom. The conversation lasted about 20 seconds, the ensuing discrimination lawsuit has lasted much longer as it has made its way to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Mike is a great guy and will prevail in this matter.
“Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”.
I notice how Newstweek misstates the case.
Pray to god the queers loose
I haven’t followed this story the whole time but I thought I heard he closed down. Am I totally wrong? Am I confusing him with another baker under similar pressure?
I like that news”tweek”. Sums em up real good
Funny, I spend hours every day on the internet and I never once heard (before this story) that the bakery shop owner in this case was taking his case to the USSC.
I’m in the same boat. That may have been another case. I may be wrong, but wasn’t there another bakery up in the PNW?
The whole show is worth watching, but watching the first 4 minutes and thirty seconds shows that the same crowd who are demanding that no one have the right to apply their religious beliefs in their business are like when the shoe is on the other foot.
You’re asking me??
I can’t remember where I put my keys or the day of the week. :)
I was sent automatically this morning by unseen internet forces a link to a live event on the steps of the USSC. I tapped it out of curiosity. So many people on there were saying: Who is Jack? I had heard of this case in the news, but I didn’t know the particulars nor that this was going on today.
Lol. I’m in the same boat with the keys, too. No, I was just talking outloud about the other bakery. I think there have been two or more cases like this. Seems like the other (another) one was run by a young couple.
Meanwhile, there's this (WARNING - foul, explicit language from your typical "gay" individual. You've been warned) definitely illegal refusal to serve Christians by a queer proprietor of a coffee shop in Seattle.
The whole show is worth watching, but watching the first 4 minutes and thirty seconds shows that the same crowd who are demanding that no one have the right to apply their religious beliefs in their business are like when the shoe is on the other foot.
The bakery that cosed down was in Oregon
The decision was announced on the Sweet Cakes Facebook page: “We have closed Sweet Cakes. We appreciate everyone’s continued prayer and support.”
Aaron and Melissa Klein “still face a hefty $135,000 fine, which they plan to appeal,” CBN reported.
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-hunter/christian-bakery-sued-lgbt-activists-closing
Re #16:
All kidding aside this is simply wrong on every level. I’ll be stunned if the SCOTUS doesn’t side with Jack Phillips but I hope their ruling will also help people like the Kleins.
Thanks.
The matter really is for Christians...either all you do is for the Glory of God..or it isn’t.
Christianity isn’t something you put on just on Sunday or Grace at a meal, it is a matter of the way one lives for Christ.
I can't think that the artistic license claim has more weight than a straight-forward freedom of religion claim would. The First Amendment specifically protects that. It protects free speech. Twisting "artistic license" into one or the other seems to me to be a bit of a stretch and would, I think, open the case up to interpretation by the court.
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.