Posted on 04/22/2023 3:46:10 AM PDT by CFW
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling that he violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to create a cake celebrating a gender transition.
Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition on Thursday with the state’s highest court. In January, the state Court of Appeals ruled in favor of attorney Autumn Scardina, who requested from Phillips a blue and pink birthday cake to celebrate transitioning from male to female. Scardina’s request was made in 2018 on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear a prior case involving Phillips. The nation’s highest court ruled the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause when it ruled Phillips must design a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage, which conflicted with his Christian religious beliefs.
After the phone conversation where Phillips declined to make the gender-transition cake for Scardina, the attorney called a second time requesting another custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana, according to legal documents. Phillips declined both requests because the cakes expressed messages that violate his core beliefs.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
Im sure anyone could go to his bakery and buy anything he was selling. These cases are such an embarrassment to America and should automatically be thrown out of Court.
Next is lowering the age of consent.
New UN report advocates for decriminalizing sex with minors
by: Joshua Young 04/16/2023
https://humanevents.com/2023/04/16/new-un-report-advocates-for-decriminalizing-sex-with-minors
I understand individual morals and I understand professional ethics.
What I do not understand is why business owners refuse these nut jobs.
Here’s the solution;
Take the order for the cake, the wedding venue, the occasion.
Give the customer a ridiculously low price.
Give the customer a product worthy of the price and witching his or her parameters.
The product or service will be of low quality and the business will never see that person again. The business will get one bad review. If the offended creates false bad reviews, that is a libelous act and then the business owner, instead of spending money defending morality, is collecting money from drama queens.
At any rate, the gay wedding, tranny cake, etc., incident is over.
Yes, SCOTUS basically just faulted CO for bias, yet if any case should have been a slam dunk case for Masterpiece it was this one. The plaintiffs essentially wanted Jack Phillips/Masterpiece to be complicit in the celebration of a union which was not only illicit based upon the supreme civil document of the state at that time (the CO constitution, by voter amendment, disallowed same-sex marriage) as well as illegal (CO did not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and the plaintiffs were "married" in MA), but very immoral in the supreme law of Masterpiece, the Bible.
Thus while Kennedy mentioned that "the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” yet SCOTUS basically kicked the can down the road: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."
While a product or service offered to everyone cannot be denied, an artist should not have to write a song, a picture, or create a custom clothing, or a cake which is for the expressed purpose of doing something that the artist considers to be immoral. Even if the artist is a racist who does not believe in mixed marriage. But that should be clearly stated, as are terms of service for ISPs. And it is not that same as for essential services as a selling gas. But denying a costumer a ride to rob a bank or get an abortion is another issue, if known. Then there are gray areas.
Indeed. See my above post. However, since SCOTUS essentially provided the bed for homosexuals, then they are faced with the problem of what to do with the maid who refuses to make the bed expressly for them.
Jack Philips did not deny two sodomites service, as they could purchase anything off the shelf, but he denied them a service of creating a custom work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an immoral (God's law) and illegal (state law at the time) sexual union. But this was judged to be unlawful discrimination since the denial was linked to what the couple was, a protected class. Meaning homosexuals are treated as a race, and thus to deny them a service due to that being related to race then it is treated like refusing to provide a a custom work for the expressed purpose of celebrating it. But since SCOTUS has effectively deemed that homosexuals are as race, and that same-sex marriage is sanctified, then having made the bed they have a real problem ruling in favor of any who will not make the bed .
Had he denied a heterosexual couple the service of creating a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating divorce btwn the heterosex couple then he would not have been charged, though most likely the Civil Rights commission would have persecuted him for refusing to do so for a homosexual couple.
But likely not a Muslim baker who refused to make a special work to celebrate the anniversary of the state of Israel. And courts do not forbid private social media entities and host web hosts from refusing to provide service to anyone based upon ideological content, and otherwise it would require entities like FR to accommodate liberals. However, while social media can effectively discriminate against religion by banning expression of such (separation of church from cyberspace), yet in the future expression of disapproval of sodomy could result in a hate crime charge.
And even treating the likes of Facebook as public utilities will not stop them from discrimination against conservatives, since that is likely what the Left intends on doing. No phone or gas to those who will not salute the flag of Sodom.
Meanwhile, a egregious example of the erosion of freedom of speech is :Judge Threatens Christian Preacher with Arrest for Using Bible Verses in an Online Protest
Washington County Associate District Judge Russell Vaclaw was elected to the bench in 2006 and has run unopposed in every election since. Vaclaw presides over the county’s protective order docket and has been a crusader against cyber-bullying in Bartlesville for over a decade.
He considers a young adolescent liking a “do you dislike so-and-so” post to be harassment and worthy of protection from the bench.
In his comments, Vaclaw admits to granting an order of protection simply after hearing a parent was involved, never listening to the other side of the issue
The ex-parte (one-sided) protective order was granted on November 22, 2022, and extended by Judge Vaclaw on December 12, 2022, without Penkoski’s presence or awareness of the order and it spite of the appearance of conflicts of interest on behalf of Judge Vaclaw. [Oklahoma Washington County Courthouse 420 S. Johnstone Street Bartlesville, OK 74003 Telephone: (918) 337-2885]
-https://v1sut.substack.com/p/bartlesvilles-anti-bullying-judge
We are way past that.
Washington State just passed a law that if your six year old girl says she likes girls she can be kidnapped and sent to a group home for transitioning without informing you or telling your where she is.
WARNING: SB 5599 Legislation to Legalize Kidnapping and Mutilating Children
A total set up yet the courts keep playing along.
“But since SCOTUS has effectively deemed that homosexuals are as race, and that same-sex marriage is sanctified, then having made the bed they have a real problem ruling in favor of any who will not make the bed.”
I love that summary but I don’t see why it needs to be an issue. If I want someone to come to make my bed, I can hire anyone WHO IS WILLING. I should not have the “right” to COMPEL someone to make my bed.
The whole “public accommodation” thing needs to be tossed out. Had it been a limited law passed by Congress to deal with genuine social problems - and I’m old enough to have been alive when there were “White Only” restrooms! - I’d understand. The problem came when the Supreme Court and everyone else expanded it into EVERYTHING. At least, everything the Left cares about, although I’d bet a lot of people would cheerfully refuse me service if I showed up wearing a hat with “Jesus Loves You” written on it!
At some point, the courts need to admit IT IS JUST A CAKE! It isn’t a fundamental human need (shelter, bathroom) but just a darn cake! Can’t get one custom made? Make your own!
But that would be contrary to the purpose of the demand, which is that all must effectively salute the flag of Sodom, thus giving glory to the devil, who seeks power against God by seducing man to pervert all that God has ordained as being right.
The Big Picture: who is really running the show in the culture war, and its nature and trajectory
The whole “public accommodation” thing needs to be tossed out. Had it been a limited law passed by Congress to deal with genuine social problems - and I’m old enough to have been alive when there were “White Only” restrooms! - I’d understand. The problem came when the Supreme Court and everyone else expanded it into EVERYTHING.
Civil rights (=protected groups) are to apply to groups based upon such non-moral aspects as race, skin color, nationality, etc., versus how one feels as regards affection and attraction and or what gender or species they choose to I.D. as, even if transitory. Yet since it now is made to apply to the latter - first by pols and later by a divided SCOTUS - then in the eyes of courts, discrimination against groups based upon religious affection and identification cannot be consistently justified, any more than refusal to accommodate those who want a bakery to help them celebrate a mixed-race marriage would be allowed.
Since SCOTUS has not only equated rights of practice and expression to homosexual events, but has effectively required all states and business to recognize and accommodate them, then it sought to avoid actually stating that Masterpiece has a right to refuse to be complicit in celebrating a sodomite union - even thought it was both illegal at the time in CO and immoral at the time, and the cake was a custom artistic creation, for the expressed purpose of celebrating a marriage that the state constitution (by amendment) denied, and even was an out-of-stat (MA) wedding that CO did not recognize. Much less the Almighty.
However, if rights are to be based upon how one feels ("born that way") then since being born of the Spirit thru penitent, effectual; heart-purifying, regenerating faith (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) characteristically results in disapproval of homosexuality and distress of conscience if being required to affirm it, then refusal to do so should also be considered a right, based upon being "born again that way" as a friend of mine put it.
Also, while Insurers can charge tobacco users up to 50% more than those who don’t use tobacco, (and certain high-risk behaviors as sky-diving can raise Life Insurance costs), yet since protected classes are no longer restricted to such non-moral aspects as race, skin color, national origin, etc. but includes psychological and (immoral) behavioral orientation, then rather having higher insurance premiums due to an unhealthy (homosexual) lifestyle, insurance companies and that of the government are required to pay costs for both prevention and care. And with the raise of the transgender right, then under the ACA gender can no longer be a factor in determining rates.
Meaning that the government promotes and protects the practice of sodomy, which - after about 40 years of seeking to prevent it, was responsible for 82% of HIV infections among males in 2018. And "in 2019, among transgender adults and adolescents, the largest percentage (93%) of diagnoses of HIV infections was for transgender MTF, and in 2019, diagnoses of HIV infection among adolescent and young adult males (85%) and females (12%) accounted for approximately 97% of HIV diagnoses (Table 8b)." And which practice (historically) has resulted in a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases, from Meningitis to Monkey pox and premature death. ]
God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47
Now just the COLORS trigger us?
But does he advertise that he'll bake CUSTOM cakes?
If Chick-Fil-a© can write on cups; surely a baker can have wring on his protective bakery product containers.
HMMMmmm...
Luke 6:30 niv
Give to everyone who asks you,
and if anyone takes what belongs to you,
do not demand it back.
Presumably he doesn’t make a lot of cakes . It’s not a product he offers.
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.