Christian Baker In Trouble Again!

[RumTumTugger]

Oh, the bible actually preaches both perspectives, contradicts itself as usual. Most Christians nowadays don't really seem to give a hoot what the bible actually says anyway.

I in this case you need to cite your source you say the bible says you have to be Christian to be married give us hte verse or verses that say that. it is your assertion you are obligated to prove it. Other wise it will stand when we tell you it is not in the bible anbd you should stop trying to teach yoru grandmother to sucks eggs you will only get egg on your face.

But that's besides the point anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter what the baker believes, he is free to believe what he wants, but as a businessman he can not discriminate against others based on his personal beliefs. In doing so he violated Colorado civil rights law, and the majority right Supreme Court was, I'm sure, well aware of that, which is why they didn't rule on the suit specifically and instead focused on the Colorado civil rights commission.

JimL Again, laws do not Trump Rights. he does have first amendment right to exercise(act on) his religious belief that he not participate in anyway with something he considers sin. Baking a cake for the celebration of a gay wedding as as is celebrating a divorce is a sin according to his belief. Until you understand that Rights are above laws I guess you not only failed civics if you had one i can only assume you failed English grammar as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

notice that the Congress shall make no laws is not a complete sentence the rest of the sentence spells out what kind of laws Congress(Government) are forbidden to enact. and the Colorado law is going to far in insisting that the baker go against his belief and commit a Sin. the first amendment was to stop laws forcing a religious belief on someone(as would have happened if the christian churches a few years back had of not protested a law from the Benicia, California city council that there be a Day of the Bible.) It says laws that would force someone to go against their sincere religious belief(which the Colorado Law does.) Unlike you and Colorado who insist that the baker go against his belief and commit what he feels is a sin Most Christian understand when a law goes to Far.


JimL you have not yet proved that there was discriminating against the gay couple because they were gay that. since yo have not brought any proof to bear on this that can be considered a falsehood.

JImL I"m still waiting for you to stop hiding and answer my questions.
1. What right of the Gay couple from the bill of rights did that baker infringe on? if you can't find one then admit the gay couples rights were not infringed.
2 Out of all the bakers that gay couple could have gone to, why are you do you insist that particular baker to bake a cake he believes is wrong to bake. There is only one reason JimL and if you repeat falsehood that "laws trump rights" then I know you and the rest of those like you are trying to hide your bigotry and attempts to force your beliefs on us.
3. Is it discrimination against the customer for the baker to refuse to bake a cake denigrating people based on color of skin, gender, sexual preference etc. Based on what you said below I think I know the answer already, but not wanting to put words in your mouth am willing to wait your answer.

Even if you argue that the message of the cake is a matter of free speech, (i disagree, it isn't speech) the speech in question would be that of the customers, not of the baker.

these questions need to be answered before you make any more assertions. and repeating your falsehood that laws trump rights is not an answer it will only show that you do'nt want to prove what a bigot you are.

[seer]

Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

https://www.christianpost.com/news/c...hostility.html

[David Hayward]

... muslimism ...

Used twice, at that. Islam, surely.

[JimL]

Used twice, at that. Islam, surely.

Nitpicker.

[Sparko]

Muslimesians

[Sparko]

‘A Win for Freedom’: Colorado Drops Second Case Against Christian Baker
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/...ristian-baker/

Colorado baker Jack Phillips is 2-0 now after state officials dropped their second attempt to coerce him into baking products that violate his beliefs.

Phillips, in turn, dropped a federal lawsuit.

“I have and will always serve everyone who comes into my shop; I simply can’t celebrate events or express messages that conflict with my religious beliefs,” Phillips said in a statement Tuesday.

“Today is a win for freedom,” he added. “I’m very grateful and looking forward to serving my customers as I always have: with love and respect.”

On the same day Phillips won in a 7-2 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, a lawyer asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a gender transition cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside.

The Supreme Court had overturned the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision against Phillips, which involved Phillips’ decision to not bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had previously targeted Phillips for fines regarding the same-sex wedding cake, again found probable cause that state law required him to bake and design the gender-transition cake.

Phillips, in turn, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

“Colorado was relentless in seeking to crush me and my shop for living consistently with my deeply held religious beliefs,” Phillips said.

On Tuesday, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, announced the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was dropping its action and Phillips would drop his federal lawsuit.

“After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone’s best interest to move forward with these cases,” Weiser said in a statement. “The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws.”

The members of the state’s commission could have been held “personally liable” for harassment if the matter continued, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s probably because they may have finally gotten scared that they were going to get hit with sanctions for, in essence, directly thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court and the court’s decision in this issue,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “It could make them personally liable for damages if they abuse their positions to try to harass an individual.”

[DesertBerean]

[seer]

‘A Win for Freedom’: Colorado Drops Second Case Against Christian Baker
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/...ristian-baker/

[rogue06]

‘A Win for Freedom’: Colorado Drops Second Case Against Christian Baker
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/...ristian-baker/

Colorado baker Jack Phillips is 2-0 now after state officials dropped their second attempt to coerce him into baking products that violate his beliefs.

Phillips, in turn, dropped a federal lawsuit.

“I have and will always serve everyone who comes into my shop; I simply can’t celebrate events or express messages that conflict with my religious beliefs,” Phillips said in a statement Tuesday.

“Today is a win for freedom,” he added. “I’m very grateful and looking forward to serving my customers as I always have: with love and respect.”

On the same day Phillips won in a 7-2 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, a lawyer asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a gender transition cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside.

The Supreme Court had overturned the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision against Phillips, which involved Phillips’ decision to not bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had previously targeted Phillips for fines regarding the same-sex wedding cake, again found probable cause that state law required him to bake and design the gender-transition cake.

Phillips, in turn, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

“Colorado was relentless in seeking to crush me and my shop for living consistently with my deeply held religious beliefs,” Phillips said.

On Tuesday, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, announced the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was dropping its action and Phillips would drop his federal lawsuit.

“After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone’s best interest to move forward with these cases,” Weiser said in a statement. “The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws.”

The members of the state’s commission could have been held “personally liable” for harassment if the matter continued, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s probably because they may have finally gotten scared that they were going to get hit with sanctions for, in essence, directly thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court and the court’s decision in this issue,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “It could make them personally liable for damages if they abuse their positions to try to harass an individual.”

yesss.jpg