Posted on 03/28/2021 8:19:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When Jack Phillips opened Masterpiece Cakeshop in 1993, he never envisioned that he would become a household name defending religious freedom against an increasingly expansive vision of LGBT rights.
Yet the Christian baker has found himself, for the third time, at the center of a lawsuit over his refusal to create custom cakes that would send messages that he says are antithetical to his religious beliefs.
In 2018, Phillips partially won a case before the Supreme Court over his refusal to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The high court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed anti-religious bias in sanctioning Phillips for his refusal to make the cake, though the justices did not rule on whether businesses can refuse services to gays or lesbians over religious objections.
In the years since that case began, in 2012, the Colorado bakery has received hundreds of requests for cakes with “offensive messages, many of them with an intent to set him up,” said Kristen Waggoner, general counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit that has helped Phillips with his ongoing legal battles for the past nine years.
In a recent interview with National Review, Phillips says the backlash is something he never could have imagined and noted that it has been tough on his wife and daughter, who have had to suffer through numerous trials and have been overwhelmed by threatening phone calls and emails.
“This is not something that you would envision or ever step into intentionally, I don’t think,” he said.
Now Phillips is back in court, facing a lawsuit from a transgender lawyer, Autumn Scardina, who attempted to order a birthday cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside in honor of her gender transition.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
If he put up a sign, that proceeds from the sale of each same-sex wedding cake will go to “The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity” an organisation devoted to helping people overcome same sex attraction, I bet they would leave him alone
They probably would, but they would probably spit in it too (or god knows what else).
You would have to prove that those behind it are criminal organizations.
And yet this was a clear case of wrongful prosecution, seeing as Phillips was not only refusing to be complicit in the celebration of out-of-state union that is contrary to the law of God, but at the time was also an illegal illicit marriage according to the highest law of the land, the CO constitution.
The moral man is, by SCOTUS, for comparing slavery with homosexual unions is a perverse comparison. Slavery in it's Biblical regulated form was sanctioned if not commanded in the vastly different context of the ANE and slave states, while the immorality of homosexual unions flows from the genesis of fundamental moral law, and is contrary to it in principal and precept, by design and decree.
For 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.
The problem is that SCOTUS (a liberal majority) made it illegal for states not to recognize this perversity, and thus they only basically touched upon the biased vengeance of CO vs. Phillips, rather than outright justify a man who refused to be complicit in the celebration of out-of-state union that is contrary to the law of God, and at the time was also an illegal illicit marriage according to the highest law of the land, the CO constitution.
Thus a liberal majority of SCOTUS made the bed and punished all who will not affirm it - to their own damnation. 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
They would never go to a muzzy bake shop and entrap them, knowing that their heads would be rolling down the street.
Of course they did... maybe another way to donate?
I already do.
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.