Skip to comments.Glenn K. Beaton: We will not worship the Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Posted on 06/24/2018 11:32:19 AM PDT by george76
The bigotry of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission earned it a spanking from the United States Supreme Court
A born-again Christian named Jack Phillips ran a bakery. Aware of Phillips' heartfelt religious beliefs, a gay couple demanded that he violate those beliefs by designing and creating an artistic cake to celebrate their marriage. This was even before Colorado had legalized gay marriage.
Phillips politely told the couple that they were welcome in his bakery and that he would be happy to sell them anything off-the-shelf. But he could not violate his faith. He even offered to find them an alternative bakery for their cake (which is easy).
But the couple weren't satisfied. They didn't really come to Phillips for a cake; they came for his scalp.
During the years that the case was pending, Phillips lost 40 percent of his business and was the frequent target of anonymous threats.
language in the commission's own website assumes at the outset that the practices they investigate are illegal. The purpose of the hearing, therefore, is not to hear. It's to lecture and punish. It's a kangaroo court.
The commission website boasts that "At least four of the commissioners are members of groups who have been or might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, religion or age."
Back to Jack Phillips' case. Consistent with the commission mission to discriminate in favor of the favored groups of which the commissioners are members, and against disfavored groups of which the commissioners are not, they crucified the Christian.
Supreme Court .. held that the commission's hateful rhetoric "cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the commission's adjudication of Phillips' case."
(Excerpt) Read more at aspentimes.com ...
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
The loony left is using this case to justify what the skank at the Red Hen did to Sarah Sanders. Apples and hammers. Mr. Phillips never denied them entry into his shop or even access to his goods. What he said was that he was not going to use his artistic talents to commemorate a ceremony that violated his beliefs. The apt analogy to the Red Hen incident might be if one waiter did not want to serve Sarah so the owner had to find another.
The commission website boasts that “At least four of the commissioners are members of groups who have been or might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, religion or age.”
Why do none of these sites name the homosexual fascists?
The owners of the Red Hen should be allowed to patronize who they want. In a way they’re exercising their right to free expression. This is the beauty of the 1A. It allows us to recognize the fools amongst us. A gov’t entity attempted to compel a Chrisian bakery to go against their deeply held beliefs. As far as the Red Hen their rights do not shield them from the negative consequences of their actions. No litigation necessary, let the court of public opinion speak for itself.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission were the bigots in this case.
I totally agree. The dummy of an owner has every right to run her restaurant into the ground as she pleases. We have a right to condemn her for it as we please.
Doesn’t it, though?
Remember that these LGBTXYZPDGRU folks are mental cases
And are looking for attention
It’s hard for thrm to get it now. No one cares about gay bullcrap
AS I recall Muslims in a retail market sued, & won, to be permitted to not “check out” Pork Products. Hard for me to distinguish the logic of nay and yea here, except that it is a hetero-white, English speaking, religious male who is being discriminated against because of his religion, and being a traditional American.
How were the homosexual couple aware of Phillips’ Christian beliefs?
Well, they’re now saying one doesn’t have to serve someone you disagree with for any reason. Now, I believe the Demoncrats were against the equal amendment.
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.