Replies

Keep in mind Cousin Mike that everyone else on this board is right.

I AM THE BAD GUY!

We shall agree to disagree.

However, I will admit I was not aware that the big issue was the WORDS on the cake. I been reading this story all weekend and never read that.

Bearing that in mind, tell me what those words were.

Doesn’t matter, I am in the wrong, I am a bad person, may the demon man murder me in mid of night.

I always considered FreeRepublic that sort of domain that respected the opiinions of others and gave space for them to express it.

Pat, the court agreed with the baker and defended his right not to bake the cake. The state of Colorado came down on the baker like a ton of bricks. It almost killed his business. The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs.

In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked Phillips to bake a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.

"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said.

He offered to make any other baked goods for the men. "At which point they both stormed out and left," he said. Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable and did not compel Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop to "support or endorse any particular religious view." It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.

The Trump administration sided with Phillips. "A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian," Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. "Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."