Posted on 12/02/2017 2:52:44 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Should a gay baker be required by law to design a cake with the message, “God hates fags”? Should an African American t-shirt maker be required by law to design a t-shirt saying, “Long live the KKK?” Should a Muslim caterer be required by law to provide pork for a secular event? Should a Jewish photographer be required to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath? The answer to all these questions is: Of course not. Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the “wedding” of two women (or men)?
That is the big question the Supreme Court will be answering next week when it hears the Masterpiece Cakes case involving Christian baker Jack Phillips.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Phillips, has pointed out that: 1) “Jack does not discriminate,” and he was perfectly happy to sell the gay couple, who subsequently took him to court, cookies and brownies and anything else pre-made off of his shelves; 2) “Jack has turned down other cakes in the past,” including Halloween cakes and lewd cakes; 3) “Jack has faced anti-religious bigotry as well as threats and intimidation simply because he declined to promote an event,” so he is the one being singled out for unfair treatment; 4) “Jack owns a private family business, and he doesn’t give up his rights when he sells his art,” and by calling his business “Masterpiece Cakes,” he is making clear that for him, they are works of art; 5) accordingly, “Jack’s shop has been called an ‘art gallery of cakes’”; and 6) “Wedding cakes made up about 40 percent of Jack’s business,” and these are all custom designed. But due to Colorado’s laws and legal rulings to date, he has had to drop this part of his business entirely.
Now, common sense would say that this case should be a no-brainer, a slam-dunk win for Jack Phillips and his attorneys. And in principle, I agree. The problem, however, is that “gay rights” have been exalted to such a degree that these “rights” trump all other rights and freedoms, including our freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion.
In the case at hand, because Phillips is a committed Christian, he doesn’t make cakes mixed with alcohol (nor can he be required to), he doesn’t make cakes for lewd bachelor parties (nor can he be required to), and he doesn’t make cakes for horror-themed events (nor can he be required to). But when he cannot, in good conscience, use his artistic skills to make a cake for a same-sex “wedding,” he can be charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws to the point that the state can now discriminate against him as a Christian.
Put another way, you can freely exercise your Christian beliefs unless those beliefs offend gays. In that case, you’re breaking the law.
And what if a Hindu came in and wanted a, “Krishna is Lord” cake? Phillips could politely decline, without legal penalty or pressure. The same with a Muslim baker declining to bake a cake for a Christian with the words, “Jesus is Lord.”
But wouldn’t that offend the Hindu and the Christian wanting to buy the cakes? Perhaps so, but the bakers are rightly protected by the law and cannot be penalized for refusing the business.
Why, then, are gays and lesbians treated differently? Why are they put in a special category?
The sympathetic answer would be that society has overcompensated for perceived past injustices. And so, the pendulum has swung from one side (mistreatment of gays and lesbians) to the other side (overprotection of gays and lesbians).
The more realistic answer is that some gay activists have always had as their ultimate goal the silencing of those who resist their cause.
As a Christian attorney once commented to me, “Those who were once put in jail want to put us in jail.”
In the days ahead, many on the left will argue that Phillips was guilty of discriminating against gay customers. But that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and if the Supreme Court finds him guilty, the implications for America will be massive.
It will mean that the highest court in the land has ruled that, in virtually all conceivable cases, gay rights trump religious rights. And it will mean that Christians in particular can be forced to violate their consciences and their deeply held, historic beliefs under penalty of law, with the real potential of losing their very livelihoods. And should they still refuse to comply, it could mean a jail sentence too.
While some on the left (including LGBT activists) will say, “This is not what we intended,” plenty of others will gloat. After all, if we deserved to be thrown to the lions in one generation, it’s no big deal to imprison us in another generation.
I’m hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing. If not, my leftist readers may mock my words today but you will mark them tomorrow.
The same with a Muslim baker declining to bake a cake for a Christian with the words, “Jesus is Lord.”
Haven’t muslim bakers declined to make a cake for fags? I recall that they have.
Yes. There are several youtube videos of horrified muslim bakers declining to make a same sex “wedding” cake.
tuffydoodle wrote:
“Yes. There are several youtube videos of horrified muslim bakers declining to make a same sex “wedding” cake.”
Any reports of Muslim bakers getting sued?
Wonderful arguments. I go further. Public accommodation laws should be limited to requiring services that are not reasonably available by other means. I call on the involuntary servitude provisions of the 13th Amendment and the free association principles in the First.
It is a built-in approach to implement social justice. Congress could deal with this outrage. . . but of course . . .
Homophobes and the Klan are not protected classes.
Should a Muslim caterer be required by law to provide pork for a secular event?
If they do not provide pork to anyone else under any circumstances then they can't be compelled to provide it to a secular event.
Should a Jewish photographer be required to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath?
If they don't do any other work on the Sabbath then no.
The answer to all these questions is: Of course not. Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the “wedding” of two women (or men)?
Because denying services based on sexual orientation is a crime in Colorado. Change the law.
That would be a “no.” Homosexuals are afraid to jack with muslims. Christians are easier targets, they won’t cut your head off with a dull butter knife.
The philosophy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that government only has powers that are openly enumerated. The remainder of powers are reserved to the States and the People.
When we sought to address the grievous mistreatment of blacks in the South, where they were denied even access to the necessities of life such as a place to go to the bathroom or a place to eat, we chose the path that ignored the founding principle of enumerated and limited powers.
In the rush to correct this problem, government did what government loves to do, which is to expand its power. We went down the path of declaring that a private business was somehow a “public accommodation”. This was done so that people could be declared to be a “protected class” and thus government in essence then could alienate the inalienable right of free association and private property from the business owner.
This was done by people who had far more faith in government than in how humans would respond to a properly crafted appeal to have compassion and respect for their fellow citizens. To illustrate this, can you imagine what would happen today if some business announced it would no longer serve some racial group? The public outrage would be so tremendous that government would never need to act to enforce the law. The business would either change or close due to lack of customers.
So we started down the road of allowing government to alienate the rights of the business owner. Of course, once a legal theory of expanded government power is approved by the courts, government immediately started to expand those powers ever more widely. While everyone would agree that all citizens of any race should enjoy their basic human rights, what happens when some government jurisdictions then move to include people such as gays as members of a class that deserves explicit protection?
When I was growing up in the 1950’s it was not uncommon to hear the rejoinder, “it is a free country.” I never hear this any more. Although nothing has changed in the Bill of Rights, I no longer can address any difference with another citizen by simply walking away peacefully, or simply and politely declining to conduct business with them. As a business owner, I can no longer say to a customer, I am sorry but I decline to offer my services to you. Please go elsewhere.
This is how we got from good intentions to allow blacks to use a rest room and a lunch counter to militant gays having the power of the state to force someone to perform services they fundamentally find offensive and violation of their conscience.
When gays rioted at the Stonewall Inn in NYC in 1969, all the media voices told us that gays just wanted to be left alone, that what they do in private is their private business. Besides, who wants to give government the power to regulate what consenting adults do? Well, the hard truth is that gays didn’t just want to be left alone. They really crave our approval and validation of their sexual orientation and sexual activities. I can never give that approval, for I take my morality from Scripture and God’s word is very very clear about sexual morality.
So, when Progressives insist that #LoveWins, they are willing to take society down this road. They would rather throw those who disagree in jail, than to allow them to withhold their acquiescence to this demand. #BakeTheCake or else!
I hope Trump gets 3 more justices to retire - Ginsberg, Altimeter and Beyers. It would be great...
That’s what’s known as a straw man. This isn’t about denying services to homosexuals which are afforded to normal people. This is about forcing Christians to affirm a practice, and engage in celebrating a practice, which violates the Christians’ personally held religious faith.
I was hoping the right to assemble (or not) that was mentioned by a FReeper in a previous article is a consideration as well. Freedom to assemble implies a right not to assemble, or in this case, dis-associate from groups condoning LGBT. That right was abridged by the Oregon commissioners’ order.
More of a conumdrum.
This isn’t about denying services to homosexuals which are afforded to normal people. This is about forcing Christians to affirm a practice, and engage in celebrating a practice, which violates the Christians’ personally held religious faith.
But in doing so they are denying services to homosexuals based on their sexual orientation. This is a no win situation. Forcing the baker to abide by the law in their view violates their religious beliefs. Allowing the baker to follow their faith as they see it violates the anti-discrimination laws. One side or the other are going to consider their rights violated.
By that standard, you could force people to engage in homosexual sex, because refusal is based on sexual orientation.
Now, in the real world, refusal to engage in homosexual activity, and refusal to engage is celebration of homosexual activity, is not the same thing as refusing to sell someone a loaf of bread because they engage in homosexual activity. So please stop equating the two. They are absolutely not the same thing.
This is NOT about refusing service to anyone, based on their sexual choices. This is about forcing Christians to engage in activities that violate their faith. These are activities that they would not engage in, for anyone. You’re demanding they engage in these activities, specifically for homosexuals, in violation of the Christians’ faith. It really makes no difference who you’re making these demands on behalf of. You have no right to make the demand.
You can sit at the counter with everyone else. You can be served the food on the menu, same as everyone else. You cannot force me to prepare a tribute to your sexual perversion.
This is really not difficult. I don’t understand why you have such difficulty understanding it.
That's idiotic.
This is NOT about refusing service to anyone, based on their sexual choices. This is about forcing Christians to engage in activities that violate their faith.
It's both. Hence the conundrum.
You’re demanding they engage in these activities, specifically for homosexuals, in violation of the Christians’ faith.
I'm not demanding anything. The state of Colorado is doing that.
This is really not difficult. I don’t understand why you have such difficulty understanding it.
Yeah it is. No matter what, in this situation someone is having their rights violated.
Of course it’s idiotic. Why do you support such idiocy? It’s very easy to see the difference between selling someone a loaf of bread, and creating a tribute to sexual perversion. Why can’t you see the difference?
The reason for the discrimination is no more important that\n the reason for abridging someones religious freedom. What's important is that regardless of which side you look at someone's rights are being trampled. I don't know what the solution is when siding with one side violates the other sides rights and vice-versa.
No, you don’t have the right to force others to engage in your perversions. You just don’t. No.
The state of Colorado and their anti-discrimination laws say otherwise.
They, and you, are wrong. Dead wrong.
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.