Posted on 07/08/2013 11:57:59 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Gay activists protest the Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012. Owner Jack Phillips now faces charges for not baking a cake for the gay couple. (Free Republic)
Gay marriage was banned by the Colorado constitution in 2006. But this didn’t stop the Colorado Attorney General’s office from filing a discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop for not baking a cake for a gay couple.
The Advocate reported:
A Denver bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is about to face the legal heat.
The Colorado Attorney General’s office last week filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who last year declined to make a cake for Denver couple Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, the Associated Press reports. The couple had their marriage ceremony in Massachusetts and wanted the cake for a hometown celebration with family and friends.
Jack Phillips, one of the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had cited his Christian beliefs in refusing the men’s business......
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
This is shameful, that in free country someone could go to jail for refusing to bake a cake for a group of queers./
Just beyond belief.
This is American Justice.
If so It sucks.
If Jack Phillips goes to jail then people I know will go to war. Period.
Land of the free ... or home of the Gays?
I didn't think I really needed a "sarc" tag on that comment, but lesson learned I guess.
All of their carrying and persecutions did not chance the truth that the earth was not flat...nor could it.
It also did not change the fact that the people insisting on it were wrong, or make the despots either correct or justified in their persecution of the truth.
So it is with the truth about homosexual "marriage," and the entire perverted life style.
Two men can not get or be "married." Two women cannot get or be , "married." Nor can it, or will oit ever be "normal."
All of the belly-aching, persecution, insisting, demanding, shrillness, etc., etc. will never change that.
And sooner or later, the truth will hold, and the falsehoods and fables and lies will be made straight...and the despots will be held to account.
That went out the window with Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Its never just about gay “marriage”.
The Repubs politicians who support gay “marriage” are putting a target on religious liberty and I doubt they will defend religious liberty when it interferes with gay “rights”.
The homosexual sign say, “Open Your Heart.”
Translation of homo speak:
“Open your heart, which means ignore your conscience and religious beliefs, dammit, or we are sending you to jail and destroying your family business, just to prove how tolerant and compassionate we are toward those who disagree with us. Have a nice day, hater! Hope your children die, breeder!”
You will bow before the state, or suffer for it! I never thought as a young man that Christians or Christian principles would ever come under attack in America. God is removing His favor.
This is a direct consequence of the Civil Rights laws of the 60s. You cannot refuse service on the basis of something which is construed as a protected group (used to be race or religion, but this has obviously expanded to sexual peccadilloes, give it time and it will expand further).
Milton Friedman once said “It is no more moral to force people to associate than it is to force them not to associate.” This is the crux of what was wrong with the civil rights movement. Even if it is widely heralded as a success these days (and to question that success makes one a ‘racist’ and thus an outcast), people simply don’t want to consider the cost. It was a naked example of ‘the ends justify the means’.
The civil rights laws, and the attendant court cases effectively nullified people’s rights to freedom of associate and private property. If a civil rights case decided that you’ve acted unfairly in violation of these laws, you no longer control yourself or your stuff without penalty.
I suspect people don’t really understand the ultimate expression of this interpretation of ‘law’. If government purpose can simply nullify rights on a whim for a ‘greater purpose’ then no right is sacrosanct.
Say someone decides that the homeless problem is simply too great. Why wouldn’t they decide that the homeless person needs your spare room more than you do? Say you have a car collection, but some poor fellow does not have a car? Well you can share can’t you? (with a bit of prodding by the fellows with the badges and guns of course).
Yes, these things haven’t happened, but why couldn’t they? When your rights are fungible without even following constitutional procedure (which at least makes it arduous), then they are no more safe then the next time radicals hold a slim majority in the legislature, and the robed people on the bench don’t want to stir things up.
I’d bake them a cake alright - and add a few choice ingredients that they love - feces.
Yeah. “Recall” him with a barrel of hot tar and a couple of feather pillows.
If this baker goes to jail, it’s time to storm the Bastille.
It’s all them. When Conservatives retaliate they get jailed or charged with discrimination. It makes my blood boil!!!!
No, but I bet it’d tighten their jaws somewhat ....
Whatever happened to stores being able to post signs stating, we reserve the right not to serve.... whatever it was? There used to be signs stating, “no shirt, no shoes, no service” so why can’t a business refuse to service gays?
HOW did Bush pave the way for GAY RADICALS?? Pray tell.
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.