Posted on 08/14/2015 11:45:28 AM PDT by Cheerio
A custom cake baker in suburban Denver can’t cite his religious convictions in declining to make a wedding cake for two men, a Colorado appeals court ruled today.
“Cake artist” Jack Phillips said he gladly serves gays and lesbians in his family business. But, Phillips said, he could not in good conscience design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple when, as a Christian, he believes that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
A three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that not doing so amounts to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Associated Press reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
charging triple might be cause problems.
With the way courts are siding against Christians, I would answer yes to all three of your questions.
"Discrimination" is morally within someones rights. If people want to discriminate, the law has no moral basis to tell them they can't.
The nation went sideways with this "discrimination" bullsh*t, and many laws were enacted that are contrary to freedom.
Ok. Charge regular price. But still donate it to the Family Research Council.
The reality is though that christians live in a fallen world with angry hostile unsaved people. Who demand things by their “rights”, so we need to be as wise about things as they are without being as wicked as they are. We need Christians who kmow law and can craft good arguments and make case law and rulings that are good not just for Christians but for all people to benefit from.
I would not, could not, with a goat.
I could not, would not, in a boat!
The judge is shockingly evil, as are the gay thugs who sued, but I’m not ready for vigilante justice. Rather, I’d like to see all the thugs and their supporters shunned by decent society. “We’re not discriminating because you’re gay, we’re refusing service over political beliefs, because you oppose freedom of religion.” Then, perhaps years from now once the rule of law is restored, we can send this judge to prison for the rest of his natural life, where he will have to defend himself against the perverts he refused to defend this baker against:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
Every judge, gay-thug plaintiff, and other petty tyrant involved in this war against religion should be hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as soon as the rule of law is restored. There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes that carry the death penalty. Whether it takes until January 20, 2017, or fifty years, these thugs need to be hunted down and given life without parole. The First Amendment is closer to an absolute than anything else in law other than the Second Amendment. Those who trample freedom of religion are as bad as Nazis and should be treated the same as those criminals, hunted down like Adolf Eichmann, Klaus Barbie, Josef Mengele, and their other fellow arch-criminals.
I agree, but if you are in court about it, you need a defense. And good Christian lawyers.
Let’s never forget, this is not about equal rights for homosexuals,
this is about criminalizing Christian beliefs.
It will only have 50% the lethal dose of salt for the average human, so it will not be fatal to eat it.
Might be a twee bit inedible, though.
I say it depends on how good the legal team representing you is. They may know they are gojng to lose in front of certain lower courts, but higher up win on appeals.
I understand this completely, and did I find myself in a similar circumstance, I would have to ponder long and hard what would be my next move, but I suspect I would end up committing felony assault on the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and likely any judge who rendered such a decision.
I don't want to be a Martyr either, but others will pay in the future if you don't protect them now.
People used to wonder why the Jews wouldn't overwhelm the guards at the concentration camps, because they easily had the numbers to do so.
The reason this never happened is because no individual wants to be a martyr, and as a result an evil can be allowed to grow quite large and powerful.
They killed them in groups that were too small to resist.
“Jack Phillips said he gladly serves gays and lesbians in his family business.”
Change that to.. “Jack Phillips said he gladly serves pedophiles and zoophiles in his family business,” and you’ll see why we’ve lost the debate. This was considered a sexual disorder requiring treatment. It wasn’t changed until pressure from leftist cultural revolutionaries/cultural Marxists. Now we just treat one aspect of it (marriage) as something that violates our religion in some abstract way. Homosexuality violates the very essence of goodness and being. When a thing is how it was created to be, it is naturally good. All this sloppy mess we’re in now is because we can’t even function or reason with each other when we hold that their is a universal good, but that it has nothing to do with the actual way things are.
So what I’m saying is we ignore the fundamental problem with homosexuality when we treat it as anything other than a contemptible, revolting perversion. I understand we can separate the person from their sin, but it shouldn’t be so easy to do. That’s why I used examples of sexual deviants who are still (almost) universally detested (for now). When we willy-nilly say things like “I have a best friend who’s gay, or I’ve been to a gay wedding because I love my wife’s cousins, or I’ll happily bake cakes for gays,” we’ve allowed the culture to dictate our level of objection. If they can do that, it’s only a matter of time before we give full assent to all of their ideas (which will continuously shift).
Its about both. They are not mutually exclusive or independent.
In rebuttal, I will point out that Rudyard Kipling had this business figured out over a hundred years ago.
This is why Ted Cruz must become our next President. He has said on his first day that he will tell the DOJ to stop persecuting religious liberty.
I cant bake the cake, the k-y jelly can’t handle the high oven temps.
I cant bake the cake, it keeps trying to eat itself.
I cant bake the cake, the fudge refuses to stay packed.
Maybe, but i've risked my life and career on matters of principle before, and I may very well be tempted to do so again.
They should not bake the cake. I can think of so many reasons why that would practically, morally, and principally be a bad idea that my head is spinning.
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.