News

Christian bakers? Atheist bakers? Cake meets faith at the Supreme Court

The original plaintiffs in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case — Charlie Craig, left, and David Mullins — wait to address supporters after oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2017, in Washington. The Human Rights Campaign and coalition supporters rallied against what they called a license to discriminate at the court. (Kevin Wolf/AP Images for Human Rights Campaign)

WASHINGTON (RNS) — What if an atheist baker refused to bake a cake for a First Communion?

What if a college with a religious affiliation didn’t want to rent out its chapel to a gay couple?

What if a makeup artist didn’t want to ready a gay couple for their wedding?

At the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Dec. 5), the justices lobbed hypothetical after hypothetical at the lawyers representing each side of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a free speech and religious rights case — and one of the most publicized of the year.

No one on either side of the dispute doubts that Colorado baker Jack Phillips’ Christian convictions drove his 2012 decision to refuse to custom-bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins.

Phillips will sell gay people cupcakes, brownies and birthday cakes, but because he believes gay marriage is a sin, he won’t bake a cake for their weddings.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission called that stance discrimination, and the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed. He is hoping the Supreme Court will give a different answer.

“It’s hard to believe,” Phillips said, tearing up outside the court after his case had been heard, that the government wants him to choose between his business “and violating my relationship with God.”

Husbands Charlie Craig (left) and David Mullins (right) prepare to address the crowd outside of the Supreme Court after the adjournment of their case. RNS photo by Chris Mathews

Inside the court, lawyers representing the couple said the state of Colorado merely insisted that the baker abide by its Anti-Discrimination Act, which requires businesses to treat all customers equally, regardless of race, gender, disability and sexual orientation, among other categories.

Phillips is free to express his opinions regarding gay marriage, but businesses can’t allow those opinions to justify discrimination against gay people, in the same way they can’t allow them to justify discrimination against black people, said David D. Cole, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued on behalf of Craig and Mullins.

“To do that would be to constitutionally relegate gay and lesbian people to second-class status, even when a state has chosen, as Colorado has done here, to extend them equal treatment,” Cole told the court.

Phillips’ attorney appealed to the justices to protect his free speech rights.

“He should receive protection here as well,” said Kristen K. Waggoner, senior vice president of the legal division of the Alliance Defending Freedom. “This law protects the lesbian graphic designer who doesn’t want to design for the Westboro Baptist Church, as much as it protects Mr. Phillips.”

As in other recent cases with heavy religious overtones — the Hobby Lobby decision on contraceptives and insurance coverage in 2014, and the case that legalized gay marriage a year later — the court divided along its usual lines, with Anthony Kennedy playing his customary role as the up-for-grabs justice whose vote could likely decide the case.

Christian activists gather outside of the Supreme Court in support of Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips on Tuesday, Dec. 5th. RNS photo by Chris Mathews

And, as usual, Kennedy offered each side reason for hope. He fretted about Phillips’ behavior toward gay people, but he also sensed among Colorado officials a “hostility to religion.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, nominated by President Trump, also suggested a hostility toward Phillips’ faith by the state of Colorado.

Part of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s remedy was for Phillips to instruct his staff on the anti-discrimination law he violated. Gorsuch wondered whether that flouted the baker’s rights.

“Why isn’t that compelled speech and possibly in violation of his free-exercise rights?” Gorsuch said, referring to Phillips’ First Amendment religious rights. “Because presumably he has to tell his staff, including his family members, that his Christian beliefs are discriminatory.”

All he had to do was instruct his employees on the law, replied Frederick R. Yarger, Colorado’s solicitor general, who with Cole defended the commission. “It has nothing to do with a particular person’s belief.”

Here Kennedy seemed to side with Gorsuch. “Part of that speech is that state law, in this case, supersedes our religious beliefs, and he has to teach that to his family. He has to speak about that to his family … his family who are his employees.”

“His belief is his belief,” interjected Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. All he has to do is instruct them that “this is what the law of Colorado requires.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) poses for a picture after speaking in support of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in front of LGBTQ activists. RNS photo by Chris Mathews

Much of the back-and-forth between the justices and the lawyers explored whether Phillips, as a baker, could claim a violation of his speech rights. Is a cake art? Is it speech? What about a floral arrangement? Or a makeup artist’s transformation of a bride’s face?

Justice Samuel Alito, who has said he is concerned about the state of Americans’ religious liberty, tried to clarify the question with another hypothetical: that of the person hired to write wedding vows for others — clearly speech.

“Somebody comes to one of these services and says … we want to express is that we don’t believe in God, we think that’s a bunch of nonsense, but we’re going to try to live our lives to make the world a better place.”

Alito continued: “The person who is writing this is religious and says: I can’t lend my own creative efforts to the expression of such a message.”

Would you say, Alito asked Cole, “too bad because you’re a public accommodation. Am I right?”

The case is not parallel, said Cole, and were it to arise, “it would certainly be open to this court to treat it differently.”

As he closed his argument before the court, Cole warned against carve-outs for those who say their religion trumps anti-discrimination law.

“Once you open this up, once you say generally applicable regulations of conduct have exceptions when someone raises a religious objection, or in this case have objections where someone raises a speech objection, you’re in a world in which every man is a law unto himself.”

The court is expected to rule on the case in early summer.

About the author

Lauren Markoe

Lauren Markoe has been a national reporter for RNS since 2011. Previously she covered government and politics as a daily reporter at the Charlotte Observer and The State (Columbia, S.C.)

81 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • ” the justices divided along their usual lines, with Anthony Kennedy
    playing his usual role as the up-for-grabs justice whose vote could
    likely decide the case.”

    Kennedy is the author of SCOTUS gay rights jurisprudence going back to 1996. The baker’s case is going down in flames.

  • A. The couple was already married. The cake was for a celebration.
    B. They never even got to the cake design, he doesn’t even know what they wanted. The baker is discriminating because they were gay. Not because they asked him to make a gay cake.
    C. Cakes are not art. They are food.

  • I agree that the RNS writer is trying to white-wash Kennedy there. That’s for sure.

    Kennedy is not even remotely close to an objective, neutral swing vote on this issue. Kennedy has sold his soul to Gay Marriage, period.

    (I almost suggested another possible purchaser, but we can explore that possibility at a later time.)

  • Sold his soul? More like found his humanity and sense of justice. There is nothing moral or just about a right or privilege to discriminate against others in the public square.

    Its telling that you rely entirely on the irrational appeal of religion for such things as there is no sane, moral or reasonable justification for it.

  • Wow, RNS is really milking this story. Ad traffic from the sheeple must be in decline without it, and the Christian sheeple flock is declining too.

  • If you think that is condemnation, I would say that you are a little sensitive. If you are going to be sensitive, be sensitive to the lies these people are told, and the unethical people who are making money, via donations, on the backs of these precious people they are directing to Hell. Get on the right team for once.

  • Sandi, you lecherous old cougar! Don’t let your husband see you lolling your beard around town like that. Jimmie Shortbeard will be jealous too of your attempts to snare Windy Edward.

  • Lisa, are you one of those homosexual “advocates” patting their behind all the way to Hell, as you pay for your car and bills?

  • LOL. Sandi, you lecherous old cougar! Don’t let your husband see you lolling
    your beard around town like that. Jimmie Shortbeard will be jealous too
    of your attempts to snare Windy Edward.

  • Isaiah 5:20 – English Standard Version

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

  • ” in the same way they can’t allow them to justify discrimination against black people”l If he has any black friends, I wonder how they react to him comparing their God-given skin colour to sin?

  • “Justice for Jack”, my foot.

    No matter how the Christian Right, conservative Christians and I try to cut this cake for all sorts of arguments’ sakes, my fellow born-again Christian brother Jack Phillips has broken The Apostolic Rule of Christian Conduct Outside the Church. Period.

    No way around it, our highly upheld bible is uncompromisingly clear on this guilty verdict.

    Acts 24:14-16
    1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 9-13
    2 Corinthians 1:12
    2 Corinthians 4:1-2
    Galatians 4:9-10
    Philippians 2:12-15
    Colossians 4:2-6
    1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7-8, 10-12
    1 Timothy 3:2, 7
    1 Peter 2:11-12, 15-17
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  • If Evangelical Christians win the right to tell gay people “We don’t serve or sell to your kind”, then turnabout is fair play: other businesses can say that when it comes to Evangelical Christians “We don’t serve or sell to YOUR kind”. It’s time to dish out the same mistreatment and discrimination that Evangelical Christians dish out to others. Fair is fair.

  • I remember when gays were saying ” gay marriage will not effect your religious rights in any way”
    They were lying…obviously.
    Now here we are a few years later and a Conservative Christian Baker is being forced to violate his conscience concerning marriage which was instituted by God and Jesus Christ when He said…” In the beginning God made them male and female…”
    How much clearer does it have to get?
    If the homosexual fascists win this case that means every conservative Christian that stands for and supports the 2000 year old biblical definition of marriage like Baker’s, photographers, Musicians (I’m a professional musician and a Christian of 30 years that has played close to a thousand weddings ), and wedding chapel owners that will then be forced by government edict and Fiat that you will bake the cake, you will play music for the homosexual wedding, you will photograph the two gay men kissing, you will rent your wedding chapel to homosexuals or we will sue, fine and put you out of business and possibly throw you in jail…the gay fascists lied a few years ago…and now we see what they truly wanted…putting Christians in jail…

  • Outlawing all discrimination and persecution is not an alternative form of discrimination or persecution.
    The law is the law and if laws are flouted merely on the grounds of mythological books written by ancient ignorant barbarians it is no wonder that the USA is ranked as the 5th most ignorant nation and the 114th least peaceful nation in the world?

  • The “they can sit in the back of the bus” argument. The baker wanted to treat gay’s as inferiors and deny them goods that would be available to any customer walking in.

    Not unlike restaurants that would serve blacks but not let them sit down inside.

  • You have no right as religious freedom to attack others in service of your faith. Discrimination is an attack. You want to treat people like crap because God says it’s OK, tough luck. You are a terrible spineless and immoral person looking for excuses to behave badly.

    If you can’t treat all customers with the most basic level of courtesy, you don’t belong doing business in open commerce.

    If you advertise your services to the general public, and are such an uncivil dbag as to deny them to a couple because they are gay, you deserve whatever fines and to be sued out of business. Mostly for bring too stupid and malicious to say, “I am all booked up try ____”.

  • Really? It doesn’t make sense that him dening them products because of their sexual orientation doesn’t make sense?
    Guess we need a gay water fountain and a straight water fountain, huh? Then maybe you’d get it.

  • I have. And I’ve told pastry chefs and sous chefs. Not a single one has stated their products artistic statement was means to discriminate. While art is subjective, discrimination is not. Thanks for trying tho.

  • A. He won’t go to jail.
    B. If your religious freedom is dependent upon the discrimination of others, then your piece of shit religion should die.
    Your views on the world do not have the moral authority to discriminate. And as long as you support a religion based on a book that condones and encourages rape, slavery, and torture, you have no right to say what others do.

  • Yes, please refuse to provide goods and services that are knowingly meant to help affirm and celebrate Christian events.

    That’s called freedom of religion. Government does NOT have the right to force you to participate (via goods & services) in events that clearly oppose your chosen Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Atheism.

    You have constitutional religious freedom. Don’t self-repeal it.

  • This is what we get when bad corrupt rulings by the courts. Instead of worrying about cakes they should be looking how illogical homosexual “marriage” is. Reverse that bad ruling and all these cases dissolve.

  • If you don’t want to do the performance, here is what you do. You say “As a matter of law, I will do this if required, but…” Then proceed to spew all the ugly, hateful vitriol you have at the gay couple. I guarantee they will go elsewhere.

  • But the question is: What constitutes “religious freedom?”

    Does the baker donate his cakes to weddings? If not, how is he “participating” in any wedding? Can a Moslem be compelled to issue a driver’s license to a woman?

    There is also an anti-establishment clause to the first amendment. Validating the baker’s “religious liberty” argument would mean that the government has given a clear preference to one set of religious beliefs over others.

  • You are still free to believe whatever you want. You are still free to articulate that belief. What you are not free is to break the law.

  • The better question is: how did black people feel 50 years ago when they were told that it was a sin to marry a white person?

  • Actually you’re projecting your own hatred onto me, which is typical…I had a gay Uncle who tried to seduce me when I was 13….don’t preach at me…I also forgave said Gay uncle who died of AIDS years later…go spew your hatred somewhere else…

  • No. But they agreed their item was an “artistic statement”. What they do with it is their business.
    It is not discrimination to not participate in evil. Get over it.

  • The court will decide…your very hateful and foulmouthed for a “Tolerant” and Coexisting” uh…Liberal.

  • You could have fooled me. In any event, if you are going to draw an analogy, that’s the one you need to draw. Religious objections were made to inter-racial marriage and the Supremes through those out.

  • I had a Homosexual Uncle that tried to have sex with me when I was 13…I suppose you think he had the right to do that…and…like a Christian I forgave him for that later and even had dinners with him even when he had AIDS, and…my kids attended those dinners…the only stupid intolerant people here are your types…and.the court will decide and they will decide in the Bakers favor because the constitution says this “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”

  • What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. Isaiah 5:20

  • Check again. Inter-racial marriage was called sin because of the color of their skins. Remember, it is supposedly not the condition but the act that is supposed to be the sin.

  • If I can’t get a product I desire from one vendor, I simply go to another vendor, or decide to do without that product. I do not try to pass a law that every vendor must always have the product I want. I suppose I could try if I was looking to make everything about me, though.

    Whether or not Phillips actions were discriminatory, here is an opportunity to leverage American capitalism by opening a bakery specifically catering to gays to take business away from him. Inciting another “religious freedom” debate is entirely pointless when there are more important things to be worried about.

  • Oh if life were that simple! Much easier to realize you live in a society with many different kinds of people and when you open a business, you serve them all.

  • I may be foul mouthed, but I don’t hate.
    Yeah I do coexist. Instead of trying to discriminate. Like you

  • It wasn’t a wedding cake!! Are you dense?
    Seriously, they were married. Maybe you can’t read good or something. He wasn’t participating in anything. Plus when has a baker participated in a wedding. Most cakes are served afterwards, at a reception.

    Lol lord save us from idiots.

  • You realize that people see those who tout a slavery and rape encouraging book as a higher morality as evil too right? And your bible does that. It actively encourages slavery and rape. Evil evil evil Christians.

  • im not breaking any laws…and im more tolerant than you, a Christian musician that never discriminated ever towards my gay uncle, who wanted to have sex with me at 13. and in fact we ( I and my family including my kids) had probably 30 holiday dinners with and his gay friends…in other words…I practice what you preach but you don’t practice…think hard…you’ll figure it out eventually…

  • You drew a lot of conclusions from “you too.” It’s nice that you don’t treat your uncle like he’s a sinner bound for hell simply because he loves a man. You don’t say whether you would perform for a same sex marriage or whether you would discourage others from breaking the laws regarding discriminating against those in protected classes.

  • I want to believe that companies should have the right to discriminate, so that they can be called out for their racism/sexism/homophobia etc. It would be a useful tool for exposing all of these horrible people.

    However, the Chick Fil A incident proved that the world doesn’t work that way. Bad press is good press. Be racist? Get rich! The only way to squash these people is to take away their rights to discriminate, or else they will only get fatter and richer. Well, the fat part I guess isn’t much of a problem.

  • Donchagetit?!

    Jack Phillips was supposed “to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before [his gay couple customers].” (Acts 24:14-16.)

    Jack Phillips was not supposed to “judge [his gay couple customers] outside his church … [but only] to judge those who are within his church? … Those who are outside … God judges”. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 9-13.)

    Jack Phillips’ “proud confidence [was supposed to be] … the testimony of [his] conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, [he has] conducted [himself] in [his gay couple customers’] world”. (2 Corinthians 1:12.)

    Jack Phillips was not supposed to be “walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending [himself] to [his gay couple customers’] conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:1-2.)

    “While [he had] opportunity”, Jack Phillips was supposed to “do good to [his gay couple customers]”. (Galatians 4:9-10.)

    Jack Phillips was supposed to “do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that [he] will prove [himself] to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of [his gay couple customers], among whom [he’s to] appear as lights in the world”. (Philippians 2:12-15.)

    Jack Phillips was supposed to “conduct [himself] with wisdom toward [his gay couple customers], making the most of the opportunity. … [His] speech [must] always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that [he] will know how you should respond to [his gay couple customers].” (Colossians 4:2-6.)

    Jack Phillips was supposed to “to make it [his] ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to [his] own business and work with [his] hands, … so that [he] will behave properly toward [his gay couple customers].” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7-8, 10-12.)

    Jack Phillips was supposed to “as aliens and strangers … keep [his] behavior excellent among [his gay couple customers], so that in the thing in which they slander [him] as evildoers, they may because of [his] good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. … [He’s] not [to] use [his] freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all [gay couple customers]”. (1 Peter 2:11-12, 15-17.)

    Jack Phillips was supposed to “keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which [he’s] slandered, those [gay couple customers] who revile [his] good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.” (1 Peter 3:15-16.)

  • My Evangelical wrongdoing in public deserves to be punished, avenged. My God & Jesus are so pleased with that “turnabout”.

    Check those scriptures I posted – that’s exactly what they say.

    “Fair is fair” – and then some.

  • My Uncle s not alive, he had AIDS for 20 years, died 12 years ago, I prayed with him twice in the two weeks before his death…what you do not understand is that you can have a conscience, have religious beliefs about 2,000 year old traditional marriage which Jesus Himself instituted, and treat Gays in your family or friends like actual people…that’s the assumptions you make about those of us like Mr. Philips is that we DO NOT treat them like people when in fact we treat them well…, I would ask you one last thing…there was a second case in My state of Colorado where a baker who was pro gay refused service to a guy who ordered a cake in the shape of a bible with certain Bible passages on them…in that case, the Colo. court ruled in favor of the intolerant gay friendly Baker…you see…there’s a double standard, one Baker was FORCED to bake the Cake he virulently disagreed with, another Baker was treated completely the opposite, where the court said “You can definitely discriminate” and the supreme court will fix that as Alito, Kennedy, and the other conservative justices will vote next year, because they recognize that the Bakers rights are being violated by the Colo. Court and this so called “Council”……..https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=azucar+bakery+denver&&view=detail&mid=0C6D8963BF252297D5420C6D8963BF252297D542&FORM=VRDGAR

  • But it’s Ok for this Baker in Colorado to discriminate…which is what you are doing…and you do not coexist, nor are you tolerant, and you hate the Christian baker enough to put out of business and pay huge fines you have a double standard like all hypocrites, On the one hand you say this Christian Baker MUST bake the cake for a gay wedding, and on the other hand you say This pro gay Baker DOES NOT have to make a cake with an offensive message to her…freedom of Speech cuts both ways, not just your way…watch video…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxScYpZXXRk

  • Sorry for your loss.

    Marriage has been around for a lot longer than 2000 years and throughout it’s history, it has been far from traditional: woman as property rights; many women one man; etc. Jesus did not define marriage. Nowhere will you find words attributed to him saying, to the effect: marriage is something that can only exist between one man and one woman.

    Perhaps you don’t understand that one can have a conscience and model one’s life after the One who lived 2000 years ago, and still lives, and believe that the way “fundamentalists” are treating the issue of homosexuality is fundamentally un-christian.

    You may believe that you treat them well and in many ways you are. But denying basic rights to a class of people is not treating them “well.” Personally, I would expect a little more cognitive dissonance from from someone like you that I am seeing but that’s another issue.

    The difference between your baker who would make a bible cake and this baker is that Christians are not a protected class. There is no double standard–the anti discrimination laws apply to protected classes as they are defined in a particular jurisdiction. That is applied uniformly.

    Which “rights” do you believe are being violated in this case? That’s a rhetorical question as I’ve read all the arguments: “religious rights” (in lieu of freedom of religion and anti-establishment), right of “expression,” free speech. I find none of them compelling. The court has already ruled that sincerely held religious beliefs can not be used to justify discriminatory actions against members of one protected class (race)–one ruling involved bob jones university. The court has already ruled that certain religious practices can be limited in specific cases (Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890)). The baker is not participating in the wedding as the case *might be* if he was giving the cake as a gift; and as far as expression, it is the message of the married couple that is being expressed, not that of the baker.

    My reading of the arguments leaves me far less certain as to how the justices will vote. Kennedy is usually considered centrist rather than liberal or conservative and remember that he is the one that wrote several of the “pro gay” rulings.

  • You don’t even understand the Bible you quote…Jack Phillips did indeed keep a good conscience before non believers…that’s exactly WHY HE DID NOT bake the cake that would have VIOLATED his good conscience…and now lets play the scripture quoting game, since I’ve been doing Christian Music ministry for 40 years…shall we have at it?

    I am astonished how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse!…Galatians 1:6-8

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.…1 Cor. 6:9-11

    For certain men have crept in among you unnoticed — ungodly ones who were designated long ago for condemnation. They turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 1:4

    Now there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies that even deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Peter 2:1

    As for those who are agitating you, I wish they would proceed to emasculate themselves! For you, brothers, were called to freedom; but do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh. Galatians 5:13

    Warning against False Teaching
    …We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.…1 Timothy 1:9-11

    For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires. So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Timothy 4:3

    “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22

    They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.…Romans 1:25-27

    each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God; and no one should ever exploit or take advantage of his brother in this regard, because the Lord will avenge all such acts, as we have already told you and solemnly warned you.…1 Thess. 4:5-6

    I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 1 Corinthians 5:9

    My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. Proverbs 1:10

    And last but not least…Ephesians 5:11

    Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

  • Since this court allows companies to design health insurance around employer’s religious beliefs, it would have to support the baker. What happens if a business person did not believe in interracial marriage or inter religious wedding based on religious convictions? This court is very inconsistent. Good luck to this couple and God save us.

  • omg now I’m discriminating. Lol. That’s like yelling at WW2 soldiers that they are discriminating against nazis cuz they won’t let them burn Jews.
    Seriously listen to yourself. You’re trying to justify the hate of a person different than yourself.
    I’m not gonna watch the propaganda from someone tries to justify hate.
    Bye Felicia

  • Why do you feel the need to “squash” anybody? Why not mind your own life and simply don’t support anyone who offends your sensibilities?

    I seriously doubt that Chik-Fil-A’s runaway success is significantly diminishing their opponents’ quality of life. Actually, it’s generating a good deal of tax revenue for the state and coffers which benefits everyone including you.

  • Actually, thushjz, religion IS a protected class within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act but the case you cite about the cake with Bible passages written on it unquestionably involves compelled speech which is against the 1st Amendment.

    Really, neither should have been compelled to create anything.

  • When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
    –@ThomasSowell

  • This is sad. It’s really hard to have a conversation w someone who doesn’t see the blatant hypocrisy of a religious majority (who’s quickly losing that majority) stating they aren’t getting preferential treatment when they elect to discriminate.

    To address your previous post and video, the gay cake owner stated they would produce the cake, just not the hateful message on it. Even going so far as to provide materials for the message requester to finish their hateful message themselves.
    While the Christian baker in question never got to the cake design with the gay men. He simply stated that he wouldn’t produce a cake for them because they were gay. I understand that this might be a hard concept to grasp for you. But it’s a pretty simple distinction.
    Either way, we don’t have a say in the outcome, do we?
    Truly, history will be the ultimate judge, as even the Supreme Court and all its political bias will probably make the incorrect judgment, as they have before when protecting the majority at the detriment to minority as shown in Dred Scott vs Sandford and Taney’s statements afterwards.

    The death throes of Christian gay hatred are upon you. Wake up. More and more, the children of today are fighting back against your bigoted hatred.
    It’s time to stop the hate and turn the other cheek.

  • You are projecting, and the hatred is coming from you…and you cannot even see it…I’ve already told you I don’t hate gays, nor did I hate my Gay Uncle who wanted to have sex with me when I was a mere 13 years old, whom I forgave for that sick grievous grotesque behavior even having holiday dinners with for many, many years, as did my own children as well as inviting him to my concerts when I was a touring musician…I also prayed with my gay Uncle who wanted asked that in the weeks before he died from AIDS…Those are not the ACTIONS of a bigot…But I digress..

    I work with many African Americans in the music business who outright REJECT the incorrect equivalence you make of Gays being similar to Blacks during the civil rights era…simply because they had no choice, whereas gays do and
    In fact I’ve heard and talked to several FORMER gays who now speak in front of thousands that are FORMERLY gay and now have families.
    That is a CHOICE…

    You are correct in that we really don’t have a say, except that I am a praying person who sees those prayers answered everyday…The mistake you make is in thinking The Supreme court or “History” will be the judge, because God Almighty will be the judge, whom you reject…

    People like you have been predicting the “death throes” of Christianity since
    Nero and Caligula, when they threw Christians into the Roman Colosseum with lions and burned them at the stake while the multitudes cheered…SURPRISE!, here we are 2,000 years later…
    You are correct, there are death throes coming, but it will not be Christians…

    My guess is that will be what you’re type will be doing soon…But you can kill the body, but not destroy the soul, which people like you have already lost…

    Oh, and don’t tell me to turn the other cheek when you hypocritically refuse to do the same…

  • And the following proves your point how, exactly?

    According to Joe Satran, “Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR”, Huffington Post, January 31, 2013, updated February 11, 2013: After “Chick-fil-A … president Dan Cathy came out against gay marriage … gay rights activists staged protests at locations around the country, and some even called for a boycott of the brand. … Soon after … former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee dubbed (via a Facebook posting) August 1 Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, leading to record sales throughout the chain. … [Ever since] Chick-fil-A has backed down from its opposition to gay marriage – Cathy has even apparently become friendly with a top LGBT rights activist. So it may only be a matter of time before pro-gay consumers become as enthusiastic as the rest of the country.”

    That the rest of the world – including discrimination victims – eventually learns to tolerate discrimination?

  • “Once you open this up, once you say generally applicable regulations of conduct have exceptions when someone raises a religious objection, or in this case have objections where someone raises a speech objection, you’re in a world in which every man is a law unto himself.”

    And just what does Cole think that constitutional protections are, but carve-outs where exceptions must be made when making laws? Remember, the 1st Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law …” The Supreme Court ruling that laws of general application don’t violate the Free Exercise clause even if they restrict that free exercise of religion was one of the most stupid decisions in US history.

  • “Why not mind your own life and simply don’t support anyone who offends your sensibilities?”

    We tried that already with Jim Crow laws. It didn’t work.

  • The purpose of dismantling the Jim Crow laws was not to squash anybody. It was to give African Americans access to needed goods and services from which they had been barred by state mandate for several decades. There is nothing analogous happening here.

    It sounds as if you’re more troubled about people who oppose SSM prospering than about gays going without anything significant.

  • I did, actually, so I apologize for not acknowledging it earlier. And yes, I’d say too that you & I agree more than disagree. Thanks for pointing me in Chick-fil-A’s direction. I love to be informed in context to present articles I’m reading. You did that for which I’m appreciative. Til next time, then.

ADVERTISEMENTs