Posted on 12/19/2018 7:40:47 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
DENVER - Attorneys for a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds - a stand partially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court - argued in federal court Tuesday that the state is punishing him again over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition.
Lawyers for Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, are suing to try to stop the state from taking action against him over the new discrimination allegation. They say the state is treating Phillips with hostility because of his Christian faith and pressing a complaint that they call an "obvious setup."
"At this point, he's just a guy who is trying to get back to life. The problem is the state of Colorado won't let him," Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said after the hearing. The conservative Christian nonprofit law firm is representing Phillips.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission said Phillips discriminated against Denver attorney Autumn Scardina because she's transgender. Phillips' shop refused to make a cake last year that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside after Scardina revealed she wanted it to celebrate her transition from male to female.
She asked for the cake on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider Phillips' appeal of the previous commission ruling against him. In that 2012 case, he refused to make a wedding cake for same-sex couple Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I’ll bake your cake, but it’ll cost you 10,000 dollars.
Praise to Alliance Defending Freedom for supporting him through all of this.
This is what maternal dystopia looks like. In the name of love, tolerance, kindness, no one is allowed to disagree with Mommy government. We’ll try to educate you and love on you, but if that doesn’t work, you’re an evil hater who is a threat to the little babies and needs to be ripped apart.
Time to locate the masterpiece cake shop somewhere in Texas.
... well, excluding the little babies they want ripped apart....
It is obvious that the state of Colorado is hot after this baker because he refuses to accommodate homosexuality in their attempt to wear down resistance of people to their perversion. Let us take this one to the Supreme Court. There should be a penalty for the State for trying to prosecute him again on the same grounds. Colorado is getting really questionable.
Yeah, I get so tired of these schemes to fill orders that are sabotaged.
“Let your yes be yes, and your no be no” said Someone once whom we should listen to.
Good strategy. It would wonderful if enough conservatives could crowd the bar to reach the occupancy limit and actually keep out the queers. Wouldn't that go over? :)
Austin? The little Colorado of Texas.
Then you've just put a price on your integrity.
What if Soros underwrites the purchase for them? Will you make good on your word?
Previously they went to 60-some bakers before they found one that denied their request and that was Masterpiece Cakeshop.
It was never about a cake. After gay marriage was legalized, it became about punishing those that disagree with them, specifically white Christians.
Now it's just harassment.
Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas...
Texas is hardly the bastion of rock-ribbed conservatism that people imagine it to be. Maybe it was at one time. Not anymore.
Thanks to Californication. (And long-term public indoctrination (school) system.)
What if he doesn't? You think they'll pay? I don't.
This baker should, for a while, just stop doing custom cakes.
Have a catalog, and tell the customers that he will bake any cake for them that they see in it; and that’s it.
The customer can add any little ‘embellishments’ that they want, on their own. (I’m sure Amazon or some other source has available little ‘gay guys’ for the top of a cake.)
And SCOTUS did not actually decide if the Baker could refuse to make cakes, etc, based on his religious beliefs.
Which sends a message that if the Colorado Commission had treated Philips better then they might have had a viable justification for their case, which is absurd. For contrary to so much misrepresentation of the case, even (well, not “even”) here on CF, the FACTS are that:
1. Jack Philips did not refuse to provide the homosexuals any service at all or just any cake.
2. The item the couple requested was a special creation that usually must be contracted for well in advance, costing hundreds of dollars, for an expressed purpose, that the couple expressed was for celebrating (in CO) their MA homosexual “marriage.”
3. Any and all homosexual unions are against the law of God , and this marriage was also against the highest state law at the time, as the CO. constitution defined marriage as only btwn one man and one women. In addition, CO did not recognize out-of-state homosexual marriages.
4. When you agree to actually aid someone to do what is illegal, knowing that is and that you aid will indeed by used specifically for that purpose, and are not compelled, then you are complicit* in it, being a “partaker of other men’s sins.” (1 Timothy 5:22)
5. Philips refusal His refusal was not because the couple were homosexuals (he would have refused a straight couple’s request for a cake purposed to celebrate an illicit union), but because of the expressed purpose that wanted it for. Providing which would make Philips complicit in assisting the celebration of a crime.
Therefore the issue of Jack Philips vs. the state of CO should have been a slam dunk case in which CO was manifestly wrong for not only the biased bigotry of the political powers, but due to the fact that Phillips not only was acting in accordance with the law of God but also the highest law of the state at the time, and thus would be complicit in assisting evil if had agreed to contract to create a wedding cake for an illegal wedding.
* In order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal [even by wanting to please the customer?], and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime...
In order to demonstrate that the defendant committed the requisite actus reus, the prosecution must show that the defendant either directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the crime. A person has facilitated a commission of the crime if he provides the criminal with the means that the criminal uses to commit the crime...
Other jurisdictions only require the prosecutor to show that the accomplice knew that his actions would either assist or encourage the commission of a crime. The difference is that, in jurisdictions that require the prosecution to prove only that the accomplice acted while knowing that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, the accomplice can be convicted even if he did not actually want his actions to aid or encourage the commission of a crime. In these jurisdictions, even if the accomplice was dead-set against his actions being used to encourage or aid in the commission of a crime and even if he did not intend for his actions to aid or encourage the commission of the crime, so long as he knew that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, he can be convicted as an accomplice. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus - LawShelf Educational Media (emp. mine)
“Complicit” traces back to the French complice (a partner or associate), which derives from the Latin complex — which means “folded together,” as in the ingredients of a cake. It also means “complex.” There are so many ways to be complicit that you could make trading cards and never collect them all. You can be complicit through action or inaction, speech or silence, association or omission. You can engage in outright collusion, aiding in wrongdoing and lying your way through the cover-up...If we take everyday life “as a moral and social space” in which “our common humanity is created and sustained,” then we must take responsibility not only for what we produce and put into the world but also for how we consume — passively and mindlessly, or actively and critically. - Behind Every Villain Stands Someone ‘Complicit’
The homo left will not let up on this until the guy has to shut down his business, is financially ruined and run out of the state.
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.