General story Government & Politics News

Justices hand down narrow ruling for Christian baker in wedding cake case

Christian activists gather outside of the Supreme Court in support of Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips on Dec. 5, 2017. RNS photo by Chris Mathews

WASHINGTON (RNS) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to design a cake for a couple’s same-sex wedding, a controversial case that was widely seen as a standoff between claims of religious liberty and LGBTQ rights.

“The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, referring to the state authority that sided with the couple after they filed a complaint. “The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions.”

In another part of the opinion, Kennedy wrote: “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

But experts and advocates noted the ruling handed down on Monday (June 4) in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission — decided in a 7-2 vote — was primarily focused on how the civil rights commission handled the case, and pushed a definitive treatment of citing religion to refuse service to LGBTQ people down the road.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The case dates back to 2012, when Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips told David Mullins and Charlie Craig that his Christian faith prohibited him from making a cake for their wedding. Mullins and Craig subsequently filed a complaint with the civil rights commission, which found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple in violation of Colorado law. The case was appealed and eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.

Jack Phillips speaks to the media after leaving the Supreme Court, which heard the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on Dec. 5, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Frederick Gedicks, a professor at Brigham Young University law school and expert on religion and law, said the precise language of the decision obscures larger issues at play.

“It’s a very narrow decision, basically finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was not neutral towards religion, and using the expressions of distaste for Mr. Phillips’ religion as the basis for that,” Gedicks said in an interview. “It’s not common for that kind of evidence to exist. What we really want to know, and what we’re really not sure of after this opinion, is what if members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not expressed distaste for religion?”

Gedicks also noted the ruling sidesteps divisions among the justices, saying, “The (majority opinion) of the case papers over a great many serious differences among the justices.”

Anthony Michael Kreis, a visiting assistant professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law whose research involves religious liberty, offered a similar assessment.

“Today’s decision is a mixed bag and both sides of the issue will likely try to claim a victory,” said Kreis, who previously served as political co-chair for the Atlanta steering committee of the Human Rights Campaign, in an email.

“Ultimately, the Court ruled that when a state prohibits public accommodation discrimination, the process must be free from overt religious hostility,”  Kreis said. “Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that there is no general constitutional exemption from civil rights laws just because a person has a religious or philosophical objection to them.”

He added: “This is a decision that is solely about process, but it leaves some of the larger questions open for resolution down the road.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Craig and Mullins during appeals, appeared optimistic about the ruling. The ACLU tweeted that the decision was “based on concerns specific to the case,” arguing, “The Court did NOT rule that the Constitution gives a right to discriminate.”

“The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people,” Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in a separate press release.

Nevertheless, Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm that represented Phillips in the early stages of the case, issued a statement celebrating the decision.

“Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment,” ADF Senior Council Kristen Waggoner said. “Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that.”

About the author

Jack Jenkins

Jack Jenkins is a national reporter for RNS based in Washington, covering U.S. Catholics and the intersection of religion and politics.

589 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Not the decision the anti-gay bigots are looking for. SCOTUS simply went after the commission for appearing biased. There was no ruling on the merit of the baker’s claims at all. Its like the last 2 cases where conservatives claimed “religious freedom” extended to a right to harm others. Narrowly tailored to its facts and impossible to use as precedent. Essentially knocking the important issue away from the court.

  • Re: “Not the decision the anti-gay bigots are looking for.”  

    No, not really, but it’s close enough that they’re sure to trumpet this “victory” far and wide. So it’s a propaganda win for them. Also, one can assume it will have a chilling effect with regard to other such cases in the future. What commission or agency handing such decisions isn’t going to say to itself, “Gee, I’d better give these militant Christianists what I want, because if we decide in a way they don’t like, they can always portray it as ‘hostile’ to their religion, and get it thrown out”?  

    Bottom line is, this decision is definitely a game-changer and considerably tips the odds in favor of religious militants, even if it ostensibly is not the decision they’d prefer were handed down.  

  • I’m sure the Anti-gay religious bigots will be celebrating mightily. But the ruling makes it clear that this applies to Philips only AND the Colorado Commission, and that…

    The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.

    In short, they punted on this case. The bigots may perceive this as a “victory”, but all the court has done is insured that the wars will continue. Religious bigots— excuse me, people who claim that their “sincere religious beliefs” trump the beliefs of other people when it comes to gay people— will continue to try to push this. They may even have a “constitutional” right to do so. But that will not protect the. From the blowback from people echo are not Anti-gay.

    Be careful of what you wish for. Your wish may be granted.

  • I can’t say it any better than the top commenter in a NY TImes article about this story:

    David Bushnell
    Arlington, VA

    It’s legally incomprehensible. By granting business licenses the State solves a problem — how to provide services to the entire populace without being in those businesses itself.

    It provides a clear line — if you are a public business you have to provide services to the entire public. If you are a private club you can do anything you like.

    This opens the door to banks, grocery stores, or even hospitals applying religious or other tests to people who want their services, and denying those services to large populations simply by asserting “religious freedom.”

    This isn’t the separation of church and state, it’s the elevation of the church over the state by religious ideologues.

    The slippery slope toward a state-sanctioned evangelical version of Christianity has begun, despite the founders’ best efforts to a erect a wall of separation between church and state. To second Ben in Oakland, “be careful what you wish for, evangelicals, you just may get it.” Between this and Trump’s declaration that as King, I mean POTUS, he’s above the law and can’t be indicted for anything, we’re heading into uncharted waters. Buckle up, it’s about to get rough.

  • I find I also need to include the #2 comment in the Times because it too deserves repeating:

    M Meyer
    Brooklyn

    First, let it be stated that Phillips is a bad businessman. He’s in the business of making cakes. Someone wanted to give him money to bake a cake. Period. Does he look into the personal histories of all his cake clients? How does he view a wedding cake for a previously divorced client? A birthday cake for a child born out of wedlock? Has he ever baked a cake for someone’s mistress? My sense is that despite “sincerely held beliefs” Mr. Phillips has never carried his “conviction” as far as to find out about other clients. This isn’t about “religious freedom” this is about legalizing homophobia.

    Could this decision be used to legally discriminate against groups you simply don’t like based on “religion?” To me, it sounds like it.

  • So much winning for “Gay Goliath”! That powerful LGBTQ lobby that beats up on poor, persecuted, God-fearing Christians, bullies them, shoves them around: score another win for that all-powerful lobby.

  • Todd Starnes of Fox News said it best: “A win for Masterpiece Cakeshop, but it ain’t over yet.”

    Justice Clarence Thomas ALSO said it best: “Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day.”

    But make no mistake Christians: Because of the narrowness of the Court’s ruling (allowing Jack Phillips to beat Gay Goliath but allowing Gay Goliath to crush Baronelle Stutzmann), that “fight another day” honestly has to be TODAY.

    You have only a limited amount of time to pray & prepare & re-group, before Gay Goliath attacks again. The ACLU and HRC and GLAAD (and yes, the Democrats too), have seriously **got plans** for you Christians. Very angry.

  • He did state in his affidavit during the administrative proceedings that he would not bake a cake for a polygamous or bigamous wedding reception.

  • I consider this more of an audible than a punt. Animus by government officials toward religious belief is ultimately a bigger issue than what vendor services your wedding. Six justices, including Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch, agreed with the majority opinion which stated: “When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion. This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay
    persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations” (p. 10). This does not seem like a win for the anti-SSM crowd.

  • Yeah you’re angry Ben. There’s a LOT of very angry gay and pro-gay folks, from the NY Times and WaPo on down, from the DNC and HRC on down, from Joe Biden and Michelle Obama on down. From Jimmy Kimmel and Samantha Bee and CNN on down, and all the liberal Methodists. They’re all grizzly angry now.

    You and your forces are steaming hot for Round 2, and today’s “punting” USSC decision guarantees that the Gay Goliath can actually begin Round 2 as early as TODAY. We know the attack is coming.

    It’s true, I am breathing a short sigh of relief. You know, like when the bell rings, and the tired boxer gets to sit down for a minute before the next grueling round.

  • In fact, it provides a useful citation for those looking to strike down “mini-RFRA’s” states look to do for their own brand of anti-gay segregation.

  • Odd, because in our country and yours, there is a separation of church and state. We don’t make criminals out of sinners.

  • “We don’t make criminals out of sinners.”
    Really? So you don’t throw thieves in jail, or murderers? My my, how does the United States fill up all those jails, Ben? (edited)

  • Ask Baronelle Stutzmann about persecution. The ironic thing is that she not only freely served gays and freely hired gays, but also publicly expressed support for of gay marriage on top of it.

    A total ally of Gay Goliath, exactly the kind of “progressive Christian” Goliath wants to put on his team.

    Yet SHE’s the one Goliath decided to make an example out of. SHE’s the one they put through the wringer and threatened her house and life savings. And under today’s narrow decision, there is still NO justice for her.

  • What, that you don’t know what you are talking about? That’s typical of you, Ben.

  • “Yet if that exception were not confined…” being the operative clause.

    Freedom of churches to marry whomever they wish within the confines of their own buildings is one thing, allowing businesses to refuse service to vast swaths of the general public based on some vague notion of “religious freedom” is another. I suppose it all depends on how subsequent courts interpret this decision, and how they use it as precedent. As a gay person, I am not reassured.

  • I’ve been ambivalent about this case from the beginning. There is nothing in the traditional precepts of Christianity as I understand them that upholds personal repugnance as grounds for refusing to do business with somebody. Mr. Phillips wasn’t being asked to sell a bomb or some other object that in and of itself might morally compromise him. It was just a cake.

    At the same time, just because I find Mr. Phillips’ rationale erroneous doesn’t mean that it isn’t sincere and based on his actual understanding of Christianity. I don’t want anyone deciding whether or not my conscience is properly formed so I won’t do it to another. Bottom line: I’m glad I didn’t have to decide this.

  • The United States Penal Code makes no provision for actions some would consider sinful behavior. The United States Penal Code is only interested in what the state determines to be a violation of the law. Period. Your feeble attempt to conflate the two once again fails miserably.

  • You know who I’d prefer to ask about persecution?

    I’d prefer to ask Celine Walker, Tonya Harvey, Phylicia Mitchell, Amia Tyrae Berryman, Sasha Wall, Nono Fortson.

    But I can’t.

    They’re all dead.

    Just like all the other transgender black women killed in this country in the past two years after white Christians (and their disgraceful allies in minority communities) placed the moral monstrosity in the White House while the howl about how persecuted they are as Christians.

    Persecuted, my eye.

  • “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” . . . . . Albert Einstein

  • So you support what happened to Baronelle Stutzmann, even though she proved to everybody that she was a 100% pro-gay Christian. Ok, got it.

    Besides, by now, she’s probably figured out that only the Bible-believing, anti-gay-marriage Christians are ever going to support her constitutional religious freedoms. Goliath clearly won’t.

    Goliath lost a nice “progressive Christian” ally there, (and of course her gay employees lost their jobs because of Goliath.)

  • Just proved Einstein was a fraud.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/1544900872

    Einstein’s Plagiarism of the General Theory of Relativity: A thorough documentation of Albert Einstein’s plagiarism of the general theory of relativity. Republishes the relevant papers of Einstein’s predecessors, captures the history of the major priority disputes and exposes how Einstein manipulated credit for the work of others.

  • Sorry, but I wouldn’t do that. I don’t believe in it. But thanks for telling me that you do.

  • She is not a victim. She is living well off of wingnut welfare. She chose to act in an uncivil and illegal way. She lost her case because there is no legal basis in her act of bigotry and malice.

    She was hardly a pro-gay Christian. She wanted to treat gays as her social lessers. Unworthy of the same treatment as any other customers.

    If you had a legitimate viewpoint, why do you need you lie so badly?

  • That didn’t wash when it was used to justify segregation back in the day. It doesn’t now. The court didn’t rule on the alleged first amendment issues at all.

  • So you intend to stick with your totally false — it’s a lie — “Gay Goliath” meme even on a day when your side “won” a “victory.”

    Got you.

    But, then, I wasn’t ever under the impression that truth mattered to you in the first place.

    Or decency.

    Or humanity.

    Or Christian values, insofar as they point back to Jesus Christ.

  • No, it’s called discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, and has been illegal in this country for over 50 years. Calling it freedom of association means that there are no discrimination laws, which is not the kind of society I’d like to live in. If you want that, I hear that Iran Russia, and Saudi Arabia are lovely at this time of year.

  • The United States was pretty cool about 50 years ago. Until the Marxist infiltrated and destroyed it.

  • I bet Baronelle Stutzmann doesn’t see it as “wingnut welfare.”

    I bet the 70-something grandma sees it as, “How come the only people who intervened to keep me from complete destitution, the only folks who really went to the mat for my constitutional religious freedom, are these ‘anti-gay’ Christians & conservatives that I originally differed with?”

  • Who cares how she or you see it? Facts are facts. She is making more doing speeches for bigots then she ever would have made doing real work as a baker. She is living high off the hog appealing to excitable bigots.

    She is scum. Spineless scum who hoped to act badly to others with impunity. She gets no sympathy for having to face consequences for being a terrible person. She deserved to go out of business.

  • Oh c’mon Spuddie. What is this propaganda you tryin’ to hand me? It’s no-good on steroids.

    You know that Stutzmann tried to offer Goliath’s henchmen multiple referrals to nearby florist shops, all the ones she trusted.

    She tried to do **everything** to serve them & respect them without traitoring and surrendering her own Christianity. Without participating in alien, foreign, Anti-Christian mess. She tried so hard to please them.

    And how did these henchmen rats repay this kind, warm, elderly, pro-gay Christian lady for showing 100% respect and caring to them?

  • I guess ‘narrow’ is the operative word here. As near as I can figure out, no anti-discrimination laws were exposed as unconstitutional and overturned.

    Which means, I would think, that that morally grotesque and unapologetic bigot Jack Phillips still can’t sell any wedding cakes in Colorado and states with similar laws unless he agrees to sell them to Gay couples as well.

  • ‘Freedom of Association’ was what the white evangelical racists of my youth claimed to justify Jim Crow segregation.

  • Way to channel the white Citizens’ Councils of my youth. Substitute ‘NAACP’ for ‘LGBTQ’ and you got them down cold.

  • Being almost Baronelle Stutzmann’s age, I’ve met some horrible, bigoted, viciously homophobic and racist grandmothers who are an embarrassment to their children and grandchildren. (Of course I also know some wonderful grandmas, too.)

    Her age has nothing to do with her immorality.

  • It doesn’t matter if she gave them referrals etc. She is the one who broke the law and disgracefully publicly humiliated her repeat customers when they wanted to do what other couples in love want to do…marry.

    When she could stereotype them, she was happy. But when they wanted to do what she would allow for herself, legally marry, then she turned into a horrible, deeply immoral bigot.

  • Some are in dismay over this ruling. But it is a very narrow ruling and it will rebound against Evangelicals because they look mean and just seeking ways to discriminate against LGBT. The ruling can’t be used for anything. Even if the baker refuses another gay couple, it would make for a new case without the piddling flaws Justice Kennedy found here.

    A bigger, comprehensive ruling will come down someday. And it will support gay rights.

  • She acted badly and faced the consequences of it poorly. A victim of her own incivility and arrogance. Hoping the laws would support a privilege to demean and denigrate customers.

    No need to pretend she is a victim. It was self-inflicted.

    “multiple referrals to nearby florist shops, all the ones she trusted.”

    Separate stores and markets but somehow allegedly equal in quality. Separate bur equal…where have I heard that before? Hmmmmm

    She tried to do everything EXCEPT the right thing because her bigotry would not allow her to treat all customers with the same level of respect. She wanted to act badly and pretend it should be treated in a civil manner. Oh well. And no, she wasn’t trying to please them, she was trying to satisfy herself. She is scum. People who support such bad behavior are scum as well.

  • “We” did, up till Lawrence v. Texas. And, for that matter, go back and look at the Mann Act (Caminetti v. U.S.) or the 18th Amendment. I’m sure they’d like to re-visit those days.

  • Kennedy probably got 7-2 because the decision was so trifling. Something more nasty and you might have more hesitation, and maybe more dissents or concurrences.

  • No. Public accommodation laws still apply, and the “religious freedom” laws seem to narrow down to marriage questions. So, don’t deny them their Big Mac and fries just yet.

  • The article leaves out an important aspect of the ruling by passing over just what the Colorado commission did to focus on why they did it. In other cases the commission had, in deciding that bakers had the right to refuse to supply anti-gay marriage cakes, accepted the bakers’ arguments that the cakes were an expression of the bakers as well as the customers, and also that the bakers’ willingness to serve the customers so long as that view wasn’t being expressed was indicative that the bakers were rejecting the sentiments rather than the customers. But when this baker used the same arguments to defend his right not to provide a cake for a gay marriage the arguments were rejected. The clear bigotry displayed by the commission simply explained why he wasn’t held to the same standard as other bakers.

    And that is why I believe this decision will have a broader impact than it’s narrowness would seem to suggest, because I don’t think that there will be very many states that will be able to stomach the idea that a baker should be required to provide a cake with, say, swastikas on it if that’s what the customer wants. And if they want to require bakers to provide a cake for a gay wedding, that’s exactly what they open themselves up to.

  • Homosexuality is not an abomination: homophobia is. Don’t you think that a virgin gave birth or whatever? Telling lies is a sin, and you should go to jail for it, according to you.

  • You do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs on other people. Clearly, you have no comprehension of the 1st Amendment.

  • ” You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

  • I’m sure that racial segregationists thought that their conscience was “properly formed” back in the day, as well.

  • If we start treating homophobes the same way that they treat LGBT+ people, they get all butthurt and cry, “WHY ARE WE PERSECUTED?” Christians have no idea what persecution is, and it’s about time that they found out.

  • Yes, that is an important point. If one reads the actual decision (59 pages long, if i remember correctly), one can see how the commission was clearly bigoted against the baker and his beliefs, and therefore failed to apply the law in an even handed manner.

  • Really? Tell me more about these **plans**, then. I’m so curious to hear what you think is going to happen next, besides a boycott of all homophobe-owned businesses…

  • You care not one bit that the baker was clearly bigoted against gay people. That fact does not even enter into your consciousness at all. LGBT+ people have rights, too, y’know.

  • https://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/07/21/no-gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender-not-sin/
    “Being gay is not a sin.
    Neither is being lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
    The Bible never claims that it is.
    It really doesn’t.
    Christians should stop saying it, because it’s killing people.

    It’s the most reckless, wasteful, irresponsible misuse of religion; the most dangerous kind of stereotyping and license to discriminate—and it’s killing people who are made in the image of God.”

  • “Christians have no idea what persecution is…” I guess you’ve never heard of the Soviet Union.

    “…and it’s about time they found out.” How lovely, calling for persecution. Your true totalitarian colors are showing.

  • Likewise. Hitler rounded up and exterminated homosexuals, too, FYI. Go back to Chechnya with your bigotry: they’re a lot more accommodating to the likes of you.

  • One argument from the Supreme Court was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed “hostility” towards religion. As it explained:

    “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be-I mean, we-we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to-to use their religion to hurt others.’ ” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-gay-wedding-cake-ruling-rubin-20180604-story.html

    Slavery certainly was justified on religious grounds. Ditto the slaughter of witches. Ditto the persecution of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Yazidis, Sikhs, heretics, atheists, agnostics and so on. I don’t know that pointing this out demonstrates hostility towards religion per se, but I can see that some would take offence at pointing out the less attractive outcomes of religious belief.

    Perhaps the lesson to drawn from this ruling is: Express yourself VERY carefully.

  • ” You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22
    “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13

    Christ is faithful and just to forgive our sin, should we turn to Him, repent and follow Him

  • And here are some of the faces of the anti-religion animus that turned the stomachs of even the libs on the SCOTUS, Floyd.

    Will they learn anything from it? Did they learn anything from 2016? No? I guess not, then. Well, on to the next cake…

  • What baloney! He had no problems selling cupcakes, breads, pies, etc., to them. He drew the line at something that he found offensive and went against his conscience and his sincerely held beliefs – just like those other bakers refused to bake cakes which carried anti-lgbt messages which they found offensive and violated their consciences. The Justices rightly pointed out that the Commission did not act even handedly when they ruled in favor of the latter, but condemned the former.

    According to the Justices, Religious people have rights too, y’know.

  • Hitler exterminated a lot of people, but just a fraction of the number of those killed by the leftist communists.

    I will pass on Chechnya. They’re largely muslim and have been killing Christians in that area too.

  • “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” -U.S. Declaration Of Independence

  • QUESTION: Whose fault was it that “the [US Supreme] Court [has reached] the conclusion that [the following] statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the [Colorado Civil Rights] Commission’s adjudication of [Jack] Phillips’ case”?

    (1) That “Phillips can believe ‘what he wants to believe,’ but cannot act on his religious beliefs ‘if he decides to do business in the state [of Colorado]'”?

    (2) That “if [Phillips] wants to do business in the state [of Colorado] and he’s got an issue with the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise”?

    (3) That “freedom of religion and religion has been used [by Phillips] to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust … [and that] it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that [Phillips] can use … to use … religion to hurt [David Mullins and Charlie Craig]”?

    ANSWER: ALL the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s fault!

  • In America the Constitution is the law of the land, not the Declaration of Independence.

  • Christ doesn’t surpass that either.

    “Minorities have a right to appeal to the Constitution as a shield against such oppression.” -James K. Polk

    “Ultimately, the reason we have a Constitution, the reason we have separation of powers, the reason we have the Fourteenth Amendment is to provide the courts with the opportunity to override the will of the people when the will of the people discriminates against a segment of our society.” -Ted Olson

  • Christians are happy to abide by the laws of whatever country they abide in, but if there is a conflict human laws and God’s laws, then “We must obey God rather than men”. (Acts 5:29)

    We didn’t burn incense to Caesar; we won’t burn it to you either!

  • I will remain married to my husband until death parts us. You and your so-called “Christians” can’t do a goddamned thing about that, can you?

  • Do you really think I loose any sleep over who you are married to?

    “The one who sins is the one who will die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18:20)

    Your sins are your own. Just don’t expect me to applaud or “affirm” them.

    Good luck with that

  • According to David Alton, a crossbench peer who campaigns on religious freedom, “some assessments claim that as many as 200 million Christians in over 60 countries around the world face some degree of restriction, discrimination or outright persecution”. That is about one in 10 of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world. Christianity remains the faith with the most adherents.
    Source: theguardian.com

  • You sound like some crazed Taliban mullah. Perhaps you should join Islamic State — you have more in common with them than you do Christianity. Even your sycophantic “Father” below doesn’t agree with that.

  • Be very careful of how you use the term “rounded up” when comparing anything to what the Jews went through in WWII. While homosexuals (gypsies, poles, russians) were placed in camps, they were not necessarily exterminated. Being a prisoner is one thing; marched unceremoniously into the gas chamber is another.

  • So the baker wanted to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs, something that has been illegal in this country for over 50 years. So the baker wants to elevate his conflation of his religious beliefs with his business over the right of others not to be subjected to religious discrimination, no matter how it is dressed up. So the baker would, in my est8matipn, howl like a banshee if someone said to him “I don’t wish to serve you because of my religious beliefs.”

    In short, all of your talk about not liking ill treatment of gay people— and this is surely an example of it— was so much hooey.

  • oh, yes!!!! They believe they are being persecuted already for being Christian!! I mean they can’t impose their dogma on children in public schools!! And the don’t get to paddle children either, a Christian virtue. They make me sick. And they always play the victim, when in fact, THEY are the perpetrators.

  • Just to be clear, “discriminating on the basis of his religious beliefs” has not been illegal in this country for over 50 years.

    As a result of all this he no longer does wedding cakes at all.

  • This is a narrow decision and a cop-out by the majority of the SCOTUS.
    If said baker refuses someone who comes into his bakery tomorrow, a new case could be opened. He’s not protected from another case and a second one would certainly be done completely right. Everyone’s sick of this guy playing the victim.

  • Well don’t hold your breath. This is going to come back and we’ll have a DEFINITIVE judgement which says if you have a business you can’t turn people away just because you’re a bigoted ass-swipe.

  • are you serious??? What kind of hater are you. Sex is normal. Gay sex is normal. Get over yourself. I’m straight but I’m not NARROW and bigoted.

  • your god is bogus….he’s a hater if he tells you that.
    Are you hearing voices again??

  • Christ never said that. Leviticus is not germane. Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. In that time, and until recently, there wasn’t all this hatred of gays. You are a loser and a peck-sniffian prude.

  • The Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission’s proceedings were rife with anti-religious rhetoric. It was clear from the record that it was perfectly willing to allow anyone to refuse any expression based on sincere belief as long as that sincere belief was not based on religion.

    The stage is set for another case that actually settles the conflicting rights and their priority.

    Fortunately few states are following Colorado into passing a bad law like this and then turning enforcement over to a half-baked tribunal staffed with left wing zealots.

  • you would be surprised. He hasn’t hurled any lightning bolts or sent a tsunami with HIS name on it. You’re not scaring anyone, just dodging.

  • hey, Father Fruitcake. You’ll die, too. There is no such thing as sin and not everyone is Christian. Christians are a minority religion.

  • they are just cretins and haters who need to get a life….
    Christians like him give the religion a bad name.

  • awwww…the poor persecuted Christians…..
    you are neither poor nor bullied.
    Your kind ARE the bullies.

  • You apparently did not acquaint yourself with the record of the Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission’s deliberations in this, which contained one long anti-religious diatribe and a couple of shots against religion in general by commissioners.

    Or that it had permitted others in similar situations to Phillips to do just what he did on other issues they disagreed with, the only distinction being they did not disagree on religious grounds.

    Colorado needs to go back to the drawing boards, staff the commission with attorneys who have at least a semblance of familiarity with the topic of civil rights and the U. S. Constitution, and test them to ensure they are not appointing bigots of any kind.

    The Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission’s deliberations had all the fairness of a trial of Jesse Jackson by 12 men wearing white sheets and hoods.

  • And if it is done right — the same standard applied to him that allowed bakers to refuse to sell anti-gay marriage cakes — he’ll win.

  • Actually the folks that look mean are the yahoos in Colorado and the LBGTQ folks who would have liked to put his man out of business.

    Notice no other state is considering passing a similar law.

  • dream on….
    by the time this hits the courts, Trump and the GOP will be out and we’ll get the separation of church and state back.
    We got Equal Marriage and all you goobers said that would never happen.

  • You do know that homosexuals were among the victims of concentration camps, as well as Jews, do you not? They had their own insignia and everything.

  • It’s not a win for either side.

    The Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission conducted a kangaroo trial leaving nothing for the justices to consider beyond the simple fact that an anti-religious tirade by a commissioner during the hearing scrapped any semblance of fairness, and the Colorado state courts looking the other way about it demonstrates what happens when you have an elected judiciary.

    “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

    Interestingly the opinion was written by Kennedy, he of the fortunate cookie aphorisms and author of Obergefell v Hodges, and concluded with this wishful thinking:

    “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

    Having sown the wind, he is trying to fend off inheriting the whirlwind.

    .

  • Although in this case it was the LBGTQ crowd with the flaming torches calling for a lynching.

  • Yawn. Wake me when there are Christians being tortured to death in concentration camps, just for being Christian, which is how gay people are treated in Chechnya.

  • Maybe you should learn something from her.

    Instead supporting bigotry for free, charge for it.

  • Too bad there are other religions on this planet. Those people have rights, too, y’know.

  • He obviously is completely unfamiliar with the facts of the case.

    And the U. S. Constitution.

    But he does know what he wants.

    And he wants it PDQ.

  • Get ready for people refusing to decorate anything whatsoever with Christian crosses, because glorifying torture/snuff porn violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs. If you want segregation by religion, then that’s exactly what you’ll get. You can’t treat LGBT+ people like second-class citizens without any consequences anymore.

  • While it’s true that future folks could seek to “spin” situations to claim hostility, that wouldn’t mean a prosecuting party would have to provide evidence that supported that claim.

    I grew up in the evangelical circles, and I remember hearing of situations where folks broke contracts for things they’d already agreed to make or do, because they found something out about how it would be used. If that keeps happening, then such situations could provide a reasonable “in” that can be leveraged to sabotage propaganda.

  • Way to recycle the white Citizens’ Council tears. We’re not the real bigots, racists and hate mongers, it’s the NAACP…er…LGBTQ crowd.

  • No, the SCOTUS went after the Commission for BEING biased:

    “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

  • A disappointed analysis from the pro-cakeshop side, in SCOTUSblog.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/symposium-the-worst-form-of-judicial-minimalism-masterpiece-cakeshop-deserved-a-full-vindication-for-its-claims-of-religious-liberty-and-free-speech/#more-270971

    The reason that no one can say what will happen is that Kennedy’s opinion attaches inordinate significance to inessential details that should have been ignored in any serious opinion. He thus notes that this incident occurred in 2012, before same-sex marriage was legal in Colorado or protected under the equal protection clause to the United States Constitution …

    … There is, happily, at least of whiff of displeasure in Kennedy’s opinion of one of the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s worst opinions, 1990’s Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, which stands for the untenable proposition that all facially neutral laws do not offend the protection of free speech, even if they have a known and massive disparate impact on the exercise of religious liberties.

  • At some point the Court needs to put the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment up against the Equal Protection clause of the 14th.

  • If your religion allows you to mistreat and denigrate of other human beings, your religion is garbage, no matter what name it goes by. How would Evangelicals like it if they were thrown out of businesses and told “We don’t serve or sell to your kind”? Gay people are human beings, and deserving of the same decency and respect that Evangelicals demand for themselves. While Evangelicals are celebrating their right to mistreat gay people, some day that mistreatment is gonna come back on them.

  • Michael Harriot of ‘The Root’ put it best:

    ‘Supreme Court Rules in Favor of White Jesus’

    Indeed.

  • it did in the time of the Puritans in Boston, 1620s. That was a theocracy. Sand for brains thinks that’s a good idea.

  • Polygamy isn’t in a protected class, even if the people involved have “sincere religious beliefs.” So, he can legally refuse them service if he wishes and be unbothered by the state of Colorado.

    If people in such relationships want legal recognition of their polygamous marriage, they know what to do…from the Abolitionists to the Marriage Equality Movement, they have plenty of model movements from which to chose for redress of their grievances. Don’t expect quick satisfaction…the Gay Rights movement started in late Victorian times. The Civil Rights movement started right after the Civil War. It took a very bloody civil war to end slavery in the United States.

    However, sexual orientation (gender relationship orientation) is a protected class in Colorado and other states that no longer worship white Jesus. So…as it’s still the law, Phillips can’t refuse service to a Gay couple wanting a wedding cake without the state ordering him to comply with the law.

  • 40 Coptic Christians were beheaded in Egypt for being Christian two years or so ago…. how’s that work for you?

  • Yes I do. I’ve been to Auschwitz and Birkenau. That’s where the pink triangle was created; along with the red, green, brown and purple triangles for the poles, criminals, gypsies and jehovahs wittnesses.
    All I’m saying is that no one was persecuted in these camps to the extent that the Jews were.

  • There’s a big difference between private citizens calling for a boycott of a business, and an animus-filled state government wrongly using its power to violate Jack Phillips’ constitutional religious freedoms and kill his business (which is what YOU really wanted, now didn’t you?).

  • Neither Jack Phillips nor Baronelle Stutzmann did any mistreatment or denigration of their customers, Tuesday. Neither one said, “We don’t serve or sell to your kind.”

    Please fact-check your own posts on this topic.

  • Occasionally I read some of Harriot’s mess (but then again, I try to read media articles from all sides of the fence.)

    But if Herriot ever shows up in THIS discussion forum — there might have to be a small war before it’s over!

  • At least some groups of white evangelicals think that’s already happening, as some kind of popular thing. It’s part of the victim narrative, which at least some claim justifies return of the behavior. They conveniently ignore that what negative treatment they receive usually is itself triggered by their own negative treatment of others (though the original inflicter of negative treatment might not be who receives the response from the original victim).

    Technically, this situation is a case in point, which is why the specific case got tossed out.

    Some folks who are convinced it’s already a pervasive thing and how dynamics necessarily are or must be between Christians and non-Christians. There are some specific verses used to “prove” this attitude, and such folks overlook how many assumptions are in their understanding of those verses.

  • Re: “While it’s true that future folks could seek to ‘spin’ situations to claim hostility, that wouldn’t mean a prosecuting party would have to provide evidence that supported that claim.”  

    A decision against them could certainly be viewed as “hostility” toward them, and presented as evidence of that. That’s really all it might take.  

  • It could, but again, leverage to sabotage such propaganda would still be possible. Doesn’t mean it would convince the folks married to the victim narrative, but there’s no reasoning with those folks, anyway—they’re already convinced they’re being persecuted.

  • Re: “The ACLU and HRC and GLAAD (and yes, the Democrats too), have seriously **got plans** for you Christians. Very angry.”  

    Oh you poor little thing! How intolerable it must be, for you, that the ACLU, HRC, GLAAD, and the Democratic Party all exist! Why, the insolence of those people! Don’t they realize they’re all required immediately to disband, collectively convert to your dour Christianism, and then think, say and do whatever you order them to? How dare they refuse to do so?  

  • Which is why we compel people to act in accord with the law. The court ruled that no law was violated here.

  • Your comment assumes an interest in facts on the part of your correspondent, an assumption which appears to be unwarranted.

  • Refusing to participate in a pagan ceremony is mistreating and denigrating other human beings.

    What was mistreating and denigrating another human being was setting up Jack Phillips.

    They knew he had already refused to bake Halloween cakes and other cakes for religious reasons.

    They already knew they could easily procure their cake elsewhere, and they did the very next day.

    They contrived to set a case up to make Jack Phillips genuflect at their altar.

  • Kennedy is in something of a state of shock that he sowed the wind and inherited the whirlwind in Obergefell v Hodges.:

    “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

    Oh sure.

  • “You’ll die. too.”

    Of course I will do. So will you. I will be united to the presence of my loving Lord. What will you be united to?

    “There is no such thing as sin and not everyone is Christian.” Well, at least you got the second half of that right!

    “Christians are a minority religion.” So? Does that mean they are wrong? Truth is not determined by a popularity poll.

    You might want to consider that gays are a minority too. Would you say that therefore invalidates their point of view?

  • Basic due process won a victory.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-111#writing-16-111_OPINION_3

    “That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe ‘what he wants to believe,’ but cannot act on his religious beliefs ‘if he decides to do business in the state.’ Tr. 23. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: ‘[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.’ Id., at 30. Standing alone, these statements are susceptible of different interpretations. On the one hand, they might mean simply that a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s personal views. On the other hand, they might be seen as inappropriate and dismissive comments showing lack of due consideration for Phillips’ free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced. In view of the comments that followed, the latter seems the more likely.”

    “On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. The commissioner stated:”

    “‘I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.’ Tr. 11–12.”

    “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

    “The record shows no objection to these comments from other commissioners. And the later state-court ruling reviewing the Commission’s decision did not mention those comments, much less express concern with their content. Nor were the comments by the commissioners disavowed in the briefs filed in this Court. For these reasons, the Court cannot avoid the conclusion that these statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. Members of the Court have disagreed on the question whether statements made by lawmakers may properly be taken into account in determining whether a law intentionally discriminates on the basis of religion. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 540–542 (1993); id., at 558 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). In this case, however, the remarks were made in a very different context—by an adjudicatory body deciding a particular case.”

    In short, it was a kangaroo court endorsed by an elected state judiciary which wet its collective finger, read what it believed to be the desired outcome, and rigged it so.

  • Why, because my morality is not determined by the state, and for me the state is not the ultimate arbiter of good and evil? Sorry. I don’t accept the supremacy of the state over conscience. You can keep your totalitarian statism.

  • The case is a good deal more complicated than that.

    The baker did NOT refuse to serve them because they were gay. He happily served them before. He would sell them bread, pies, cakes, etc. What he would not do is make a cake which carried a message (approval of gay marriage) which would violate his conscience and his sincerely held beliefs. The Commission had, in several other cases, said it was ok for bakers to refuse to make cakes that carried messages that violated their consciences and sincerely held beliefs (they were cakes carrying anti-gay marriage messages.) The SC Justices rightly excoriated their uneven handed treatment, and voided their judgement.

    The Justices also pointed out that the Commission was clearly bigoted against the baker. They summarily rejected his religious beliefs as invalid. In so doing, they set themselves up as arbiters of what constitutes a valid religion. In ancient Rome the government had the power to declare what constituted valid, licet religions. In the American polity, under the Constitution, the government does not have that power.

    In short, it was a complicated case, and the Commission acted unfairly and unconstitutionally.

    It was also not the case that the baker refused to serve them because they were gay. The Justices noted that that would be wrong and illegal. (And I agree with them.) It was a much narrower case about refusing to bake a cake which conveyed a message (approval of gay marriage) that he found offensive (in his case, on religious grounds, but this could apply more widely, for example, a kosher baker refusing to bake a “Happy Birthday Adolph” cake.)

    Finally, if I asked an Islamic baker to bake me a cake depicting the crucifixion (which would be offensive to Muslims, in that the Koran states that Jesus was NOT crucified), and he said “I don’t wish to do that because of my religious beliefs”, I would be fine with that, thinking him to be within his rights.I would seek another baker. But if he refused to serve me at all, then I would indeed “howl like a banshee”.

  • “at least of whiff of displeasure in Kennedy’s opinion of one of the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s worst opinions,”

    I liked Employment Division v. Smith. It was Scalia’s only intellectually honest decision. If it were applied by conservatives towards all religions (instead of showing Scalia’s bias against all religions not Christianity) we would not have this case here in the first place. The description of its holding by the author is entirely off base.

    Funny that a “small government” Libertarian takes issue with what is clearly “judicial minimalism”. Using the narrowest application of power to a given conflict in law and avoiding anything which could be of precedential value.

  • Left-wing idiocy now, left-wing idiocy forever!
    You liberal thugs just can’t stand it when you aren’t allowed to legalize your contempt for other views, can you?

  • It has on a few occasions.

    Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948
    “The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and
    suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their
    stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The
    ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive
    the rigors of strict strutiny.”

    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213
    “Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.”

    At some point the Civil Rights Act needs to be amended to unambiguously include LGBT people.

  • https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets

    One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.

    The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

    One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

    The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to
    offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another
    is to forgo one’s own.

    Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the
    world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our
    beliefs.

    People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and remediate any harm that may have been caused.

    Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in
    action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should
    always prevail over the written or spoken word.

  • Interestingly “their Creator” is specifically NOT a specifically religious reference, no matter how much Dominionists pretend to claim it is. It is not specifically Jesus, the Abrahamic God, or any religious figure. It is meant to apply to all beliefs or none at all.

    If Jefferson wanted to make an explicit religious reference he had ample ability and time to do so. Jefferson himself was rather agnostic in his beliefs

  • Yet Dominionists always refer to the Declaration and try to minimize sections of the Bill of Rights like the Establishment Clause.

  • You seem obsessed with Chechnya.
    My advice – don’t go. Stay here in America where your stupidity is protected by the First Amendment.

  • If they were true, we would not have this case at all. Christians are seeking special privilege here to violate the laws of the land as an excuse to act maliciously and with impunity for its own sake.

  • Do you really think I loose any sleep over who you are married to?

    Yup.

    It is why fools still contribute money to National Organization of Marriage even though its goal of preventing marriage equality is long lost. It is why anti-gay bigots still try to carve out a measure of victory by trying to discriminate against gays (married or not) in various public ways.

    It actually follows the same pattern as segregationists did from the 1960’s to mid 1970’s. Eventually they will morph into a new form of politicized bigotry and claim they supported gay rights all along.

  • Sin exists only in one’s faith. Nobody else has to care what you consider or don’t consider sinful.

  • Harriot is hit and miss, and on his misses he makes Louis Farrakhan sound like the voice of tolerance and racial reconciliation.

  • You have no morality to speak of. You simply defer to arbitrary authority. Any act, no matter how atrocious is excused if one can proof text scripture and claim God absolves them of the harm they do to others.

    There is no act of conscience in malice and bigotry. There is no moral consideration to speak of. Morals are more than following directions. They involve weighing one’s actions against the real impact on others. (None of that “it will affect your immortal soul” garbage means a thing)

  • If you are incapable of giving respect to others, you have no right to demand it from others as well. Respect is not in your wheelhouse.

  • It’s a great raltionalization, but it simply isn’t true. No one was asking for his approval or participation, they were asking for a cake. Participation is what antigay people tell themselves is the distinctive issue. I was a wedding photographer for 30 years. No, I did not participate. Nor was my approval being asked.

    He stipulated that it WAS about his religious beliefs.you can’t both claim it was about his religious beliefs, and discriminating on the basis of religious belief, and then say that it was somehow different.

    Of course it was because they were gay, and were doing something of which he disapproved. If they just wanted a cake, the issue of who they were would not have come up at all. A written message is much different, and I have no issue with that. If he were clergy, I would have no issue with that, either. If they were an interracial couple, do you think his religious beliefs would be paramount?

  • “He drew the line at something that he found offensive and went against his conscience and his sincerely held beliefs.” I find bigotry offensive. Since he was not being asked to get gay married, but OFFENDED that they were, I don’t think it’s much of a point. How dare they proclaim that they were his religious Moral, sexual, familial, and spiritual equals? That is what offended him.

    “Just like those other bakers..” writing something is vastly different then selling the very same kind of cake that he willingly sold to other people.

  • As father schick notes above, you are perfectly fine with legalized contempt for other views— as long as you are the one that gets to express the contempt— that gay people are the religious, familial, and moral equals of any so called christian.

  • You really should read the Supreme Court decision -all 59 pages, if I remember correctly.

    The baker NEVER said “We don’t serve or sell to you kind”. He DID serve and sell to gays before. What he did refuse to do was make a special cake communication a message that violated his conscience and his sincerely held beliefs. The Commission had previously said that was acceptable -in several cases in which bakers refused to bale cakes with anti-gay marriage messages! This uneven-handed bias of the Commission was excoriated by the Justices, and the Commission’s judgement was rightly overturned.

  • If you look back, say 60 years or so, you will see that in fact Jesus–“god”, the god of all–was regarded as white. And let us not forget that it took the SBC until 1995 to apolkogize for its past racism.

  • Let us not forget that prior to 1960 or so, southern “Christians” read the bible so as to discriminate against African Americans–that was their “sincerely held religious belief”.

  • I supported the couple in this cake, not the baker. But part of what made Philips such an attractive litigant is that he had some arguable consistency, in that he refused to bake some other cakes in what he considered sinful situations.
    Also, one of the reasons the same-sex couples have been winning these cases is that the law has nothing to do with what ceremony is involved. Individuals fall into protected classes based on, among other things, their religious beliefs and sexual orientation. The courts have ruled it is orientation discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. I don’t think a baker would have such an easier time with a polygamous group from the FLDS, for example.

  • They were not asking for “a cake”. He would gladly have sold them “a cake”. He refused to make a specific cake, for a specific purpose, one that violated his conscience and beliefs. A cake that clearly celebrated something that violated his conscience/beliefs.

    I don’t see where I claimed it was not about has religious beliefs.

    The Court clearly saw that it was not “because they were gay”. He served gays all the time. Read the full Court decision, if you haven’t already. it seems very clear.

    Your belief that by being a wedding photographer you were neither participating nor approving is precisely that: your belief. Others may believe differently.

    But would you be the wedding photographer Heinrich Himmler?

  • I supported the couple in this cake, not the baker. But part of what made Phillips such an attractive litigant is that he had some arguable consistency, in that he refused to bake some other cakes in what he considered sinful situations.
    Also, one of the reasons the same-sex couples have been winning these cases is that the law has nothing to with what ceremony is involved. Individuals fall into protected classes based on, among other things, their religious beliefs and sexual orientation. The courts have ruled it is orientation discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

  • If you can legally do this to LGBT+ people, they can legally do the same to you. I guess that never occurred to you in a million years.

  • Funny how you think that you have psychic powers and can read my mind. LGBT+ people are sick and tired of being discriminated against by Christians, and we’re not going to take it anymore. Knowing what we know now, we don’t want your crappy cakes, anyway.

  • We’re not talking about discrimination against Jews by cake-bakers, now, are we? But since you brought it up, how long before neo-Nazis stop decorating cakes with the star of David?

  • Source? I know how Christians like to make up lies about how persecuted they aren’t.

  • Then it’s not a violation of the law for LGBT+ people and their allies to refuse service to homophobes. Bye-bye, LOL!

  • The minute anyone subjects Christian persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market, there will be riots.

  • Your homophobia is despicable, insubstantial, and insincere, as well as a defense of segregation by sexual orientation: “Homophobia now, homophobia forever!” Get a new hobby, bigots.

  • Laws are not laws because we wish them to be. Personally, I’d refuse service to nobody.

  • You obviously lose quite a bit of sleep over whom LGBT+ people marry. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here harping about gay wedding cakes.

  • You obviously think that the will of Christians should invalidate gay people’s point of view. Sucks to be you.

  • Whom do you charge for your “services”, exactly? You appear to be a paid shill for the homophobic agenda, or else just some old bigot with nothing better to do with his time.

  • Does he have any problem baking a cake for an atheist wedding, where god is completely absent? Does he have any problem baking a cake for a Hindu wedding, where multiple demonic false gods are present as idols, and invoked to bless the bridal pair? Old Testament or new, that is certainly a Nono. What about Jesus denying Jewish weddings, where holy matrimony lacks that important feature? and Allah forbid a cake for an Islamic wedding, where Jesus is just another prophet, and it is the worst sort of blasphemy to proclaim he is the son of god?

    Why do none of those cakes violate his delicate conscience and sincere religious beliefs? It is very telling that the only place where conservative Christians have any objection to servicing anybody’s wedding is when they are required to behave decently, politely, considerately, and without bias towards gay people. No other place. The very fact that this is tearing apart denominations, where divorce and interfaith marriage are not, ought to give you a good idea of how little this has to do with actual religious belief, and how much it has to do with a deeply engrained, ancient, and vicious prejudice.

    And no, it is not simply “my opinion.” In 30 years in the business, I have never known one who would make that claim about their participation or approval. We provide a service, the same service we supply to everyone. If we don’t wish to provide that service, there are plenty of perfectly legal ways to refuse service, even for illegal reasons. And I have done so. But not for illegal reasons, nor would I insult my potential customers with my religious superiority.

    As for being the Himmler of wedding services— well good Godwin! It’s not about being a Nazi, and I find your use of the comparison reprehensible, to say the least. I repeat: The Nazi comparisons, like the situation itself, only seem to come up when conservative Christians are required to treat gay people the same as they were treat anyone else, and would demand that anyone treat them. It’s very telling, it doesn’t make you look good, and you might really want to look at that.

    Or not.

  • From the CDC:
    “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with mena account for 70% of new HIV infections in the United States.
    New HIV infections among gay and bisexual men overall remained stable in recent years.
    More than 600,000 gay and bisexual men are living with HIV in the United States.
    In 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70% of new HIV infections. Approximately 492,000 sexually active gay and bisexual men are at high risk for HIV”

  • Homosexuals were exterminated in the Holocaust by fascists, along with Jews. Get your history straight.

  • Nope, never contributed to that, or any similar, group.

    Slept very well last night again!

  • Nobody has to care what you call sinful and it clearly is not. You got your doctorate where?

  • The way the ruling is done, if the baker does the same thing, he can expect to be hauled in front of court again and the prior SCOTUS ruling can’t help him there. No precedential or collateral estoppel effect on the issue of discrimination.

  • In case you missed it, the Supreme Court decided it was the pro-lgbt Commission which acted with bias and unconstitutionally, and in so doing did “violate the laws of the land as an excuse to act maliciously and with impunity”. Talk about “special privilege”!

  • No link from the CDC, you are quoting an old or discredited study. Anti-gay bigots are known to be liars and malicious defamers by nature.

  • To some extent. Marital status is frequently in state anti-discrimination laws. Mostly to protect divorcees and single parents.

  • “You mean I can’t force others to follow my religious beliefs? Stop oppressing me!”

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/33730e3c1b8035ad381d399ed5c718a045d675cd3cb0bd4395595d7bcede85cd.jpg

    Interesting way to put it, considering the animus is entirely from the religious here. It is the religious types who are seeking to act maliciously and attack others with impunity. To think opposing such things are hateful speaks badly for your character, as usual.

  • Actually he more or less did. The entire argument concerning his desire to discriminate and reasons for it was not even addressed in the decision (which you clearly did not read).

    The baker did not want to treat gays with the same respect he would treat any other customer. He did not want to treat them as social equals. His conscience was nothing of the sort. It was malice and bigotry with ready made excuses.

    It is not a moral act to attack others in the name of your faith, nor can be considered an act of conscience to expect such attacks to happen without consequence.

    If the baker does the same, he is going to be back in the court.

  • Except they both totally did. That was their intention. To treat the gay customers as their social lessers. Underserving of the basic courtesy afforded to any other customers.

  • The fact in this case is that it didn’t go the way left-wing bigots wanted it to go, by a margin of 7-2. Pissing and moaning about a decision is not a legal argument. I’ve yet to hear any lefty demonstrate any knowledge of moral arguments; usually they don’t even bother framing their ramblings in such a manner.

  • It is my hope that a sober understanding of, and enforcement of, the U.S. Constitution, will protect us from the crazies of both the alt-right and the far left.

  • Meaning you did not read the decision.

    I have yet to see left wing bigots here or elsewhere. Right wing bigots are so common they even try to give their prejudice color of law and have support from politicians to do so. Don’t see that on the other side of the aisle.

    I have yet to see an intelligent or honest person who used the term “lefty”. If you haven’t seen them demonstrate knowledge of moral arguments its because you can’t recognize what they are. To a conservative, morals are for other people. Not themselves. Not ever.

  • Okay, were you mugged in Chechnya or something???
    Pity your kind of people didn’t have the same outrage when Christians were the victims of genocide by ISIS and Boko Haram.

  • You missed it entirely and clearly didn’t read the decision. It was an alleged anti-religious bias being exhibited. If the baker tries it again, he will be in the courts again and this decision won’t help one bit. It has no precedential value.

    Again, if not for anti-gay bigots seeking special privileges for themselves to be above the law and attack others with impunity, this case would not exist.

  • I certainly did read the decision, all 50 plus pages of it. It was very finely reasoned and convincing. You clearly did not understand the arguments being made there.

  • It was understood plenty. But if you are claiming the commission was pro-LGBT then you are either mistaken or lying. The decision concerned an anti-religious bias.

    The laws themselves did not support the baker’s privilege to discriminate. They still don’t.

  • And what kind of people am I exactly, in your view? Gay people get tortured to death in concentration camps in Chechnya, while you sit here crying about your “religious expression.” Who are you afraid of?

  • no. They made their choices when they chose to rebel against Christ. Nice try though.

  • Where are they? They can be found on college campuses, and elsewhere, dressed in black, wearing masks, violently shutting down free speech, and physically attacking people. Some of them call themselves “Antifa”. A more accurate term would be “fascist left”. Like the Dominionists, they are a threat to our republic.

  • I’m not trying to scare anyone. The truth that I could tell would frighten you. I just don’t want to see any onedie in Hell

  • Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

  • “Rebel against Christ”? No one is obligated to follow your religion, you theocrat. Get tortured to death for rebelling against Satan, why doncha?

  • So you are saying that just because the baker does not discriminate on the basis of religion in EVERY case— a highly debatable statement in and of itself- that it somehow means he didn’t discriminate on the basis of religious belief in THIS case.

  • LOL!

    Antifa is beer league in comparison to the far right. A group who is less of a significance and more used as a phony counterpoint to the long history of white supremacist excesses and mayhem. Essentially used to pretend opposition to the far right is more extreme and smaller than reality permits. The real opposition to the far right goes by the name “Freedom Loving Americans”.

    Whereas you have a few anectdotes concerning the “far left”, there are decades of murder, mayhem, and worst of all official government support for the far-right fascist types. Shutting down free speech is a given on Conservative Christian college campuses and churches. Yet “Lefty Haven” Berkeley College was willing to host arch conservative Franklin Graham. Go figure. 🙂

    # of people killed by the far right in the US since 2011: 80 +
    # of people killed by Antifa ever in their existence: Zero

    Dominionists are an actual threat to be worked up over. They have influence, numbers, and money.

  • Go tell that to your hero Kennedy. The little people on the CCRC mouthed ALL of your typical hateful talking points and lost the case for your guys on pure animus.

    Make no mistake that this case, which could easily have gone the other way, was a warning that the militants are getting close to overplaying their hand. Clearly the justices (almost all of them, anyway) do not want to see decent and honest businesspeople like this targeted and hounded by you guys, and Obergefell was explicitly NOT intended to hand you any such weapons. But of course you won’t take a lesson in discretion, and the next time one of your lynching attempts makes its way to the SCOTUS your activist heroes will be permanently gone from the bench. Congrats.

  • Supposedly, according to your religion only. I, however, am a Buddhist and a LaVeyan Satanist. Get tortured to death for rebelling against Buddha, why doncha?

  • Fascinating. And what became of the bodies of all the gay people who were tortured to death in Chechnya, or the Holocaust, for that matter?

  • Ok. So, you advocate for genocide against anyone who doesn’t follow your particular religion? You think that Hitler was right on target? Get tortured to death for not following MY religion, then.

  • Good job showing your true colors: you think that religious genocide is just fine, as long as it’s not against YOUR religion.

  • “Although in this case it was the LBGTQ crowd with the flaming torches calling for a lynching.”

    Thank you, bob or Jose, for proving that this is not about religion. Just plain old bigotry.

    There were no calls from any gay people to lynch Phillips. there were No torches. There was a demand that religionists obey the same anti discrimination laws that apply to everyone else. There was no demand for special treatment, for an exemption to that law, by anyone except for anti gay hyper religionists. The case was not a ruling against gay people, but a ruling against the perceived, and to my mind, highly imaginary bias of the Colorado Civil Rights commission.

  • Only a true believer would call both the Republican and Democratic parties from 50 years ago tools of Marxism.

  • You want to pretend to be a victim for acting like a malicious bigot, get bent. That narrative has always been phony.

    Kennedy specifically avoided the discussion of the discrimination and religious beliefs. He did intimate however, that if given a chance to make the determination, the baker’s claim lacked merit and would attack civil liberties laws in general. Instead he ruled on what is apparently a technical dismissal based on those adjudicating the prior claims.

    “do not want to see decent and honest businesspeople like this targeted and hounded by you guys”

    Meaning in plain English, you want a privilege to attack customers with impunity and discriminate regardless of civil rights laws on the books in a given area. People who lose their business because of bad publicity from their own discriminatory acts deserve no sympathy. They received the consequences of acting badly. Those who defend such actions are equally reprehensible. No different from anyone else advocating segregation in open commerce.

    ” next time one of your lynching attempts”

    Interesting use of language from people who got their start lynching people.
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

    Even more interesting coming from and advocate of segregation currently.

  • Again, address all this whine-and-cheese to Kennedy. Be sure to tell him how reprehensible he is. ?

  • Homosexuality has existed in all cultures and all times as a normal human variant. Christianity first criminalized it (read a bio of Oscar Wilde, killed and imprisoned people, and then continued to harass, target, stigmatize, malign and make LGBT person’s ‘the other’ and ‘then unacceptable.’ Old dictionaries define it as “pervert’ and ‘invert’.
    Sexuality exists on a continuum, and between total heterosexual (males and females, who only see opposite sex as potential sex partners, to homosexuals who only date and have sex with their own gender. Between these two are huge behaviors in preferences and behavior. The huge middle is diverse and all people’s need to find their place in this.

    Christianity insists on black and white distinctions and mandatory heterosexuality. Gays harm no one. Gay marriage does not harm me (as a monogamous heterosexual woman, married to the same man for 53 years) nor does Equal Marriage harm straight marriages. Those who attack LGBT are making problems where none exist. I cleave to the idea that “As you harm none, do as you will. Self-declared opponents of LGBT make problems and great suffering for gays. It’s complete nonsense, a political hobby-horse that conservatives, the GOP, and the religious bigots keep riding to death. Eventually, you will wake our or die and be replaced by a more open and affirming generation.

  • if he’s ‘in business’ then he needs to serve the public according to public norms and contracts to serve customers. This yo-yo calls himself a ‘cake artist’ and insists on his creative rights to pick his customers. It does not work this way. I’m in favor of universal service to others….and universal compassion. We need to care for one another — in business or not–and not cause unnecessary harm to others. Serve the public or get out of business.

  • My spin on the court decision.

    When groups disagree it’s better when only one side acts out in their disagreement. The Supreme Court expects more from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

  • Actually, it was Judaism that first criminalized homosexual behavior, centuries before Christianity was ever heard of.

  • Did you catch the similarity of the commissioner’s described statements to the favorite whines of our resident God-haters— one of them, in particular? ?

  • Why do you insist on deliberately using poor grammar all the time? Do you think it makes you sound like you’re from the ‘hood? You’re smarter than that.

  • I was not the one claiming victimhood here for being denied a privilege to discriminate. That was all you. I am just demonstrating what a pile of dung your complaints really are here.

    Kennedy already said how reprehensible it was in page 10 of the decision (Pg 13 of a PDF version)
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

    “…then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rightslaws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations”

    “if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings… theState would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

  • The Commission’s anti-religious bias stemmed from them being pro-lgbt.

    Whether the laws themselves supported the baker’s right not to make a product which he found offensive to his beliefs and values is in question. What is apparent is that the Commission said “Yes, they do” in the cases of the other bakers.

  • Much like your last post to me, you are imputing elements which did not exist from the facts given.

    It is not a question of being pro-LGBT or not. It is a question of the laws on the books and who is a protected class under them.

    The laws did not support the baker’s alleged claims. Kennedy made that clear in the decision around page 10. The court never made a decision as to the merits of the claims before them.

    “. What is apparent is that the Commission said “Yes, they do” in the cases of the other bakers.”

    Not at all, you are making up your own facts and narrative about the decision. The same baker can try to do the same thing and this decision will not protect him. He will be back in court.

  • Yes, you are right. The early Jews were a small group and vulnerable so they insisted that all sex be between men and women. If a woman’s husband died, his brother had to marry the widow — to ensure the male lineage, with the expectation that she bear more children, and to make sure someone took care of her. These norms are pro-natalist, every woman bears as many children as she can. In a time of overpopulation of the planet, this norm is dysfunctional and needs to change so that women control when or whether they have children. In like manner, LGBT need acceptance since the reason they were excluded was the prevailing pro-natalism of the time.
    .
    But it took Christianity to enshrine this as ‘sin’ of the most grievous and unforgivable kind, leading to the absolutism of our times where some straight Christians insist they are superior to LGBT persons and can dictate their own narrow doctrines as US law. That doesn’t fly. Jesus was a small ‘u’ universalist. He welcomed everyone into the Kingdom. Too bad so many of today’s Christians don’t follow his example.

  • Ok. So, you advocate for sinners turning from their sinful ways and accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? You think that the entire human race is made up of broken, fallen sinners? Get saved by a just and merciful God even though we are undeserving?

  • I’m not 100% certain Ben. I get it, people are pissed off because they go into a cake shop and don’t get what they want because the guy behind the counter doesn’t like their lifestyle. I’d be pissed too. Serious question to you – since you’re more thoughtful than myself. How does it work if the roles and gender identify are reversed?
    What if a gay proprietor refuses to serve a straight customer based upon their personal beliefs?
    Seriously curious.

  • No. I did not say the baker discriminated on the basis of religion, in this case or in any case. The documents say nothing of the religion of the gay couple, and there is no basis to say that he discriminated against them on the basis of religion.

    Nor did the Court find that he discriminated against gay people. That also was clear, as he regularly did business with gay people.

    In this case, the Court found that the Commission condemned the baker for refusing to make a cake which gave a message of approval to something that violated his conscience/values/beliefs. Previously the Commission had said, in several other cases involving bakers refusing to bake cakes (anti-gay marriage cakes) that this was allowed. The Commission’s inconsistent rulings appeared to be due to their bias against the baker’s religious beliefs/values, and hence the Supreme Court rightly vacated the Commission’s judgement.

  • Says the guy who thinks nothing of gay people being tortured to death. Something is clearly wrong with you — oh, right, it’s Christianity making everyone stupid.

  • Go back and read the opinion, Einstein. It specifically states that the situation described here is NOT present in this case.

    All you’re demonstrating here is precisely the same animus that none of the justices save two were willing to countenance.

  • Antifa, and the far left in general, have no influence, numbers. and money?

    LOL. Does George Soros, for one, ring a bell?

  • What “all the time”? I only use it when I want to, and you can find plenty of posts in every thread where I do not. But it doesn’t bother me when I do. Shouldn’t bother you either.

    PS….I am from the ‘hood, by the way. Glad I’m not there anymore. But meanwhile, I use the words, and the grammar, and the tone, of MY choice. And they can come from most anywhere!!

  • A bit disingenuous here.

    He didn’t discriminate against them on the basis of THEIR religious beliefs, but his own. He stipulated that freely, of his own free will.

    He did discriminate against this gay couple because he doesn’t approve, for religious reasons which you admit, of Their marriage. That he doesn’t do it all the time is also irrelevant. He would do it again if presented with the opportunity.

  • Please stop smoking those Magic Mushrooms, Charlotte!! Somebody done laced them with rat poison again!!

  • Soros! Everybody Drink!

    There is nothing more ridiculous than reading conservatives looking for George Soros under their beds at night. He has become their all purpose boogeyman and rationalization subject.

    Why face the facts that a political position is unpopular when you can claim Soros is paying people to protest it? 🙂

  • A 7 to 2 vote on the Supreme Court is NOT a “narrow ruling”. It is a clear unmistakable ruling. These particular gays had many other bakeries available to them; but they went after this particular baker because he is Christian and opposed to their sinful practices. They made this a religious freedom issue; and this is why they lost.

  • I quoted it directly. Even gave you where to find it. You saying otherwise isn’t worth a thing. Especially when you don’t even bother to back up your remarks in the same fashion.

    They never discussed the merits of the claims presented and simply attacked the forum for the initial decision.

    You are quite the snowflake. Expecting sympathy for those acting badly and getting annoyed when you expectedly do not get it.

  • “…you are making up your own facts and narrative about the decision”.

    It’s right there, page two, section (a):

    “the State Civil Rights Commission concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted LAWFULLY [emphasis mine] in declining to make cakes with decoration that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.”

    also on page 2, in section (b):

    “Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillip’s case and the cases of other bakers with objection to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission.”

    The situation I described is laid out in the Court document. Look in the mirror if you want to see who is making up their own facts and narrative.

  • First, it’s not a lifestyle. It’s a life.

    And discrimination on the basis of both religious belief and sexual orientation is illegal in Colorado.

    The laws apply equally to gay people and non gay people, to religious people and non religious people. That’s the whole point. Finding exceptions to laws which forbid discrimination simply underline why we have those laws in the first place. In your example, if a gay proprietor refused service to a straight customer, and the laws in his state required non discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, he would be equally wrong. And equally stupid, non professional, and bigoted. Im sure in the entire history of the universe, there might be a few examples of that, So I wouldn’t want to say that it hass never happened. But I am fairly certain it hasn’t, or if it has, there have been only a couple of documented cases. And in any case, I would not be supporting that vendor.

    As I wrote to Father Schick, why is it acceptable in this case, and this case only— gay people— to discriminate? Why can I reject the entirety of your religious belief, and get no protests of wounded conscience, but in the case of gay people getting married, it’s suddenly a special case?

    I will give you a very gray example of exactly what you were talking about. Some years ago, a couple came to me to photograph their wedding. They belonged to a hyper fundamentalist church in the south bay, a church whose pastor was viciously anti-gay, and heavily involved in the anti-gay marriage movement in California. I had seen some of the materials with his name on it, and I was not amused. I was still willing to do their wedding, even though I had absolutely no desire to step inside that church, or be exposed to that pastor. For the record, there was a Catholic Church in SF that I simply refused to work at, as did many other photographers I knew. But it wasn’t because it was Catholic, but because the priest in charge was a total butt head.

    Ultimately, however, I decided not to do their wedding, but not because of their church or their pastor. The reason? They had known each other for a grand total of Four weeks when they came to see me, and were as far as I could tell, not ready to marry anyone, let alone each other. I had to weigh whether I wanted to be involved in a business like that, given The likelihood that by the time they got around to ordering their pictures, they might not be married any longer, assuming they even went through with the marriage to begin with. I had already gone through that several times with couples that seemed to be highly unsuited for the life adventure they were proposing. Twice I didn’t get paid the money that was due me after the wedding, and once the couple didn’t order anything, and demanded a credit for the album that they weren’t going to order either.

    It would’ve been very wrong for me to deny them my services on the basis of their religion or their pastor or their church. I never did that in 30 years of business. But it was certainly not wrong for me to deny them on the basis that I didn’t much care for them and I thought that their marriage was a mistake.

  • Since homosexual behavior was a capital crime in Israel, I hardly think Christianity can claim responsibllity for turning it into a “grievous sin.” We simply followed the lead of the Jewish believers of the Jerusalem church in repudiating it and all other forms of fornication.

  • Only in über Christianity do you get the ramping up of ‘sin’ as something unforgivable, and us as ‘Sinners in the hands of an Angry God.” Judaism never had a Calvin. and a theology of human depravity.

  • “…a baker acted LAWFULLY [emphasis mine] in declining to make cakes with decoration that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.”

    Yes, it is unlawful to demean gay persons or gay marriages. Get that through your thick skull.

  • Why do you leftist creeps keep using the term “homophobia”? I don’t fear homosexuals, and neither do I hate them. On the other hand, I do believe they are very sick, and not a third sex. (Or, is it four now?)
    As an artist, over the years I worked with many gays, and respected them as persons and for their art. My concern is that they are not receiving the help they truly need because of creeps like you.

  • Excuse me? You think that homosexuals are “very sick, and not a third sex”? What a homophobic thing to say! You should seek therapy to find out why you are like this.

  • Maybe if Christians didn’t insist on denying them life-saving medical treatment, because simply being in a room with them makes Christians uncomfortable…

  • No one cares about your opinions, either. Only the facts matter. #VirginsCantGiveBirth

  • The fact is, Charlotte, I have far more legitimate compassion for gays than you do. By the way, I am a therapist.

  • You can’t get forgiven if you’re executed by stoning.

    The central message of Christianity, OTOH, is repentance and forgiveness thru the finished work of Christ.

  • As a bisexual genderqueer, I think you should lose your license to practice, based on your comments above.

  • You stopped short. As did whatever lame source you’re cutting and pasting from. That you don’t appear to understand what I’m talking about demonstrates that you have not read the opinion at all.

    Seriously, Lare, what is so scary about simply READING?

  • Pennyroyal, I had thought it was obvious I was being ironic and mocking those who claim that LGBTQ folks like me are some kind of Gay Goliath who beats up on poor, persecuted Christians — who are quite definitely NOT persecuted in the U.S.

    Sorry the irony was not apparent.

  • You don’t understand. Spuddie does not read actual sources. He is copying and pasting from some liberal echo-chamber which he consulted to find out what the current party line on the subject is.

    He had no idea what I was talking about either, when I pointed out how he misunderstood another incomplete quote. It’s actually quite a funny spectacle. Too bad he can’t enjoy it too, being the butt of it and all.

  • LOL! What nonsense. Anybody can “demean” anybody they please. Otherwise you certainly wouldn’t be allowed here.

  • You obviously don’t know the facts of the case or the decision.

    And those black people could just go to another lunch counter, right?

  • Says the Christian who can’t stand anyone demeaning the idea of virgin birth.

  • “Demeaning” is a fact of life, and entirely to be expected from God-haters. I am not disturbed by it in the least.

  • Ben, hypothetically speaking, at what point does a persons conscience out-weigh the states laws? Do they have that right?
    Does a soldier have the ability to refuse a lawful order? An unlawful one?
    Just wondering if there’s any situation where your conscience would overrule the law.
    On another note, it was interesting to see how you were able to discern the success of the young couples marriage and decide not to take them on as a client- how noble of you.
    As I reread your commentary, you passed judgement a couple of times-which I gather is always wrong from your other commentary – and decided not to do business with people. The priest was a butthead, the kids were to young/immature to marry; you seem to have it locked down. Seems to me you made a few “business decisions” and selected your clients just like the cake guy did.
    One final point – I find it hard to believe that if some straight client went into a gay establishment and made a legal but outrageous demand; that the gay proprietor wouldn’t tell them to get the hell out. I would expect it and encourage it.

  • False from “Bob Arnzen”, as usual. The onus is on those proposing the existence of a sky fairy such as the Christian one.

    Furthermore, the existence of the Christian god is easily disproven.

  • LOL. No, Sandi Luckins, it was plainly your comment that was pathetic, and wrong as usual.

  • Christianity is an abomination -a particularly horrid and hateful one at that.

  • LOL. No, Sandi Luckins, Christ didn’t create much of note, and was a mere mortal who long ago rotted away.

    Get over your sicko sky fairy stories already.

  • Shawnie, no, the central message of Christianity is mainly that its sick sky fairy would be a horrifically vengeful being, if it actually existed. Fortunately it obviously does not exist.

    Get over your disgusting, bigoted sky fairy stories already and get with the modern world.

  • Good point. One more negative point among many about Christianity, and a particularly shameful one -although it’s tough for it to stand out in the company of all the other Christian horrors.

  • How so? You were the one who made the ridiculous claim that “demeaning” gay marriages was unlawful.

    When you’re confident in the rightness of your choices, others’ “demeaning” means very little.

  • Penny’s right here. No matter the outcome here, LGBT rights are advancing and coming to the fore in America, despite the frantic attempts by festering old bigots such as Shawnie5 and her bedmate Bob Arnzen.

  • No, I was quoting “Father Herman Schick”, above. Reading comprehension is a thing.

  • I am not opposed to “all” Christianity, or all of any religion, for that matter. I believe there are plenty of good things in Christianity; of course, that is as I understand it, and as I understand the (alleged) words and ideas of (alleged) Jesus.

    Here’s a link to a relevant article from NYTimes that I found very interesting, and that I mostly agreed with:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/opinion/why-we-need-religion.html

    Part of the problem with religion, (?)especially (?) Xianity, is that the most vocal folks, and of course, the new recruits in particular, are usually the worst representatives.

    Finally, I have the impression that most serious scholars of the bible regard it as book written by individuals, perhaps claiming to be “inspired” by god, and of course, put together by individuals in a process that had to be thoroughly political and shot through with negotijation. (Not to mention, there is serious doubt about the origin and accuracy of some of the books such as the Synoptic Gospels.)

  • Then perhaps you should have addressed your comment to Father Herman and not me. As I said, I am not disturbed by any purported “demeaning.” I was simply laughing at your notion that demeaning gay marriages was unlawful.

  • I am laughing at your notion that demeaning gay marriages is lawful. So will the Supreme Court, if you bigots ever make it that far again.

  • A cake cannot demean gay people or gay marriages unless there is a Specific something written on it. That is not in the logos of cakes.

  • Because the bigots clearly show a fear of the existence of LGBT people. Your post proves such things. You clearly do not want to consider them as people or social peers.

  • Yet you use insulting and demeaning language when referring to them. Go figure, bigot.

  • The fact that many here have long and fruitful lives makes you a defamatory troll on the subject

    You have shown me on numerous occasions that you are fact averse and your opinions are pretty useless.

  • Little girl, anybody can say anything they please about gay marriage. It’s called free speech. 1st Amendment.

    I think you need to get off mommy’s phone and get busy on your homework.

  • LOL, how old do you think I am, exactly? I’ll say whatever I want about your precious religion, as well, and freely practice my own, thank you very much.

  • I’ll demean whatever your sex life is, too, then. Confess your sins, why don’t you?

  • It would be hilarious that you said that, if not for the fact that you actually seem to believe it. Because it is lawful for a baker to decline to make an anti-gay cake, it does not follow that all bakers MUST therefore decline to bake anti-gay cakes.

    What nonsense, we are free to disagree with gay marriage all we want. (At least until you totalitarian leftists ban free speech.)

    Unlawful to hurt other people’s little feelings? Awww, that’s really sweet.

  • Note that the gun supporter, deluded Christian nutcase, anti- women’s rights crusader and NRA shill presenting himself at present in this thread as “Bob Arnzen” variously and dishonestly uses a variety of names on RNS such as Bob Arnzen, José Carioca, and others. However, there is actually no real Bob Arnzen.

  • Yes, I had a feeling he was resistant to facts taken from actual sources.

    And it does seem kinda funny.

  • You sound about 12. Beyond that age, one might be expected to have had some exposure to the constitution in school and to have emotionally matured past “I’ll do whatever I want!”

    I think I’ll say goodbye and block you now. You are cluttering up the thread and I have no interest in discoursing a child. Take care.

  • You are no doubt correct about that. A generic cake has no message. That is why the baker in the Supreme Court case was willing to offer them a generic cake.

    A wedding cake, however, is not a generic cake; it is made specifically for the purpose of celebrating a specific wedding. That is in the logos of wedding cakes. And that is why he refused to make a specific wedding cake.

  • Says the guy who is totally butthurt by the mere existence of gay people, let alone gay marriage. #yawn

  • Yep – sitting on a tarmac with a former president figuring out how to let his wife off the hook.

  • She seems to think that if something is lawful, that means you can’t make fun of or criticize it. And yet the Christian religion is lawful, but she says below “I’ll say whatever I want about your precious religion.” Logical consistency seems to ellude her.

  • How typical of you to deflect (by an ad hominem attack) from the fact that you were shown to have no comprehension of what the Justices actually were saying.

    Unlawful to hurt people’s feelings? Really?

  • That’s why I just blocked her. Some posters are so devoid of substance to that it is simply not worth the effort of scrolling past their comments

  • Endorsing gay marriage hurt this baker’s feelings so much, he went all the way to the Supreme Court about it, and won. So yeah, I guess so.

  • Trump colluded with Russia, obviously. And it’s only a matter of time before he is impeached.

  • courts often punt when the case is difficult .” hard cases make bad law” is the old maxim . thus we have a very narrow ruling that allows both side some claim to success, and leaves the question of religion and civil rights to another day .

  • You’re right about my unawareness of the existence of Secular Bigots. That they’re the sorry excuse, though, for SCOTUS not to make a trendsetting ruling on this case, sure took me by surprise.

  • The way it works in this country, although Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor seem unaware of it, is we have fair hearings before the hanging.

  • Only if he is in the business of serving individual indistinguishable cakes or services which are generic, like rhyming last names in limericks.

    Leave people and their religious beliefs alone or prepare for the battle to come.

  • Would you like me to provide six posts from JoeMyGod on this very case when it went before the Supreme Court?

    As to the “highly imaginary bias” – you haven’t bothered to read the opinion:

    “There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.”

    “The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

    “That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe ‘what he wants to believe,’ but cannot act on his religious beliefs ‘if he decides to do business in the state.’ Tr. 23. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: ‘[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.’ Id., at 30. Standing alone, these statements are susceptible of different interpretations. On the one hand, they might mean simply that a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s personal views. On the other hand, they might be seen as inappropriate and dismissive comments showing lack of due consideration for Phillips’ free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced. In view of the comments that followed, the latter seems the more likely.”

    “On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. The commissioner stated:”

    “‘I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.’ Tr. 11–12.”

    “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

    “The record shows no objection to these comments from other commissioners. And the later state-court ruling reviewing the Commission’s decision did not mention those comments, much less express concern with their content. Nor were the comments by the commissioners disavowed in the briefs filed in this Court.”

    Of course, these bigoted commissioners sounded exactly like someone from the Oakland area who posts here.

  • Nope. The inspector general’s report is going to come out regarding the corruption at the department of justice which has already netted Andrew McCabe and soon to be James Comey. From there, the dominoes will begin to fall; leading to Lynch, Hillary, and the Obama White House.

  • That Christians in America don’t deserve “fair hearings before the hanging” is the message I’m getting now from these Secular Bigots. That’s one huge lesson learned for me from this case.

    So disappointed. Was looking forward to a good, civil fight. Routing for David Mullins and Charlie Craig, no less.

    The Commission ruined everything!

    What am I to do now for the rest of the summer?

  • AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Conspiracy theorist completely ignores the routine garbage coming out of the Trump White House on a daily basis. You’re in for a world of pain, once Mueller comes through with indictments against Flynn, Cohen, Trump, etc.

  • You should bring that to the attention of the Colorado authorities when they reform a Civil Rights Commission that is actually interested in civil rights.

  • The ACLU and the complainants clearly went hunting for this individual.

    They knew he would not bake Halloween cakes because of his religious beliefs.

  • The record is silent as to whether he disapproved of their marriage.

    He simply said he would not be involved in a same sex marriage by baking a cake specifically for one.

    He also would not bake Halloween cakes.

  • They never discussed the “merits of the claims” because the Commission was a kangaroo court.

  • Do you EVER bother to read a case before commenting on it?

    From the decision:

    “Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.”

  • It was not a “technical dismissal”.

    It was recognition that we require fair hearings and trials.

    Period.

  • You really should start reading opinions before commenting:

    “There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.”

    “The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

    “That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe ‘what he wants to believe,’ but cannot act on his religious beliefs ‘if he decides to do business in the state.’ Tr. 23. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: ‘[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.’ Id., at 30. Standing alone, these statements are susceptible of different interpretations. On the one hand, they might mean simply that a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s personal views. On the other hand, they might be seen as inappropriate and dismissive comments showing lack of due consideration for Phillips’ free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced. In view of the comments that followed, the latter seems the more likely.”

    “On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. The commissioner stated:”

    “‘I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.’ Tr. 11–12.”

    “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

    “The record shows no objection to these comments from other commissioners. And the later state-court ruling reviewing the Commission’s decision did not mention those comments, much less express concern with their content. Nor were the comments by the commissioners disavowed in the briefs filed in this Court.”

  • Here is the animus from the anti-religious Commission:

    “There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.”

    “The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

    “That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe ‘what he wants to believe,’ but cannot act on his religious beliefs ‘if he decides to do business in the state.’ Tr. 23. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: ‘[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.’ Id., at 30. Standing alone, these statements are susceptible of different interpretations. On the one hand, they might mean simply that a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s personal views. On the other hand, they might be seen as inappropriate and dismissive comments showing lack of due consideration for Phillips’ free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced. In view of the comments that followed, the latter seems the more likely.”

    “On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. The commissioner stated:”

    “‘I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.’ Tr. 11–12.”

    “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

    “The record shows no objection to these comments from other commissioners. And the later state-court ruling reviewing the Commission’s decision did not mention those comments, much less express concern with their content. Nor were the comments by the commissioners disavowed in the briefs filed in this Court.”

  • It’s alright. One day we’re going to be in control, and it will be evangelicals who will be thrown out of business, denied jobs, denied housing, denied medical care, stripped of their rights and freedoms, have their children taken from them, and all of the inhumane treatment that they dished out to gay people. We’re going to make them into legal and social pariahs just like they did to gay people. And just as Evangelicals have and no mercy on gay people, gay people will have no mercy on them. Celebrate now, but know that someday the tables are gonna turn …

  • Mostly what I see is Evangelicals who are bigots, haters, and hypocrites. That is not a good advertisement for becoming Christian. By their fruits ye shall know them.

  • With the position the court by some of its political hacks (sometimes called Supreme Court justices a left term when it was a respected institution) took on the Hobby Lobby case, it was obvious this ruling was going to happen. While the court danced around on some narrow issues, this is far less consequential then denying an employee health care because a for profit business decides the healthcare is against the religion of the owners.

    I suppose we will need guidance on which rights trump other’s rights. Is religion stronger then race discriminationm race stronger then sex discrimination, and sex strong then disability or is there some other order? Not sure on this listing of order

  • Sexual orientation is not protected by the Federal government is the way sex and race are protected. Not saying its right or wrong, but it is not recognized by the Federal courts because congress has not passed the same kind of anti- discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.

  • Being black is not a religious issue, dumbo. I am fully aware of the facts.
    Obviously, you are not.
    I don’t believe that this case alone resolves the issue. Agreed?
    Since three of my best friends are black, I’ll use this illustration:
    Instead of taking a “no blacks allowed” position, suppose I simply put a notice on the entry door to my business, “Welcome to all. 10% of my receipts are donated in support of the KKK.” How many black customers do you think I would have.
    I do believe a similar procedure would at least discourage gay customers;
    and I’ve done nothing illegal.
    I don’t know of any Muslims who dine at a Jewish Deli. I wonder why.
    I don’t hate anyone. I hate illness and ignorance; and frequently the most ill and most ignorant call me a bigot.

  • James 2:26 nails it……Believing in Jesus without good attitudes, works and deeds won’t amount to a hill of beans.

    James 1:22 helps things along……But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.

    Religious freedom means I’ll do what ‘I want’ regardless of what is written down for us as our guide.

    So, what good attitudes, works and deeds should I perform towards the LGBT community?

    Are they written down where I can know what they are?

    Yes, here are some of the best ‘attitudes, works and deeds’ you can find —

    1. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way…..Romans 14:13

    2. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God…..Romans 15:7

    3. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love….Ephesians 4:2

    4. …all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble….1 Peter 3:8

    5. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…..Philippians 2:3

    6. Be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone…..Titus 3:2

    7. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven…..Luke 6:37

    8. ABOVE ALL, LOVE EACH OTHER DEEPLY, because love covers over a multitude of sins…….1 Peter 4:8

    9. Let your gentle spirit be known to all men…..Philippians 4:5

    10. Don’t seek your own good, but the good of others…….. 1 Corinthians 10:24

    11. Follow after the things that make for peace……Romans 14:19

    12. In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets………Matthew 7:12

    13. Do to others as you would have them do to you………Luke 6:31

    14. Honor everyone……….1 Peter 2:17

    15. Continue to love each other……….Hebrews 13:1

    16. Be devoted to each other with mutual affection. Excel at showing respect for each other……Romans 12:10

    17. …let us do good to all people…………Galatians 6:10

    18. …have the qualities of [good] salt among yourselves and live in peace with each other……Jesus……Mark 9:50 [brackets mine]

    To be continued as more good attitudes, works and deeds are realized…

  • “The courts”, of course, means state courts.

    The underlying issue of conflicting rights, the first being a First Amendment right and the second a semi-constructed right by the courts and legislation, have yet to have their definitive encounter.

  • It was the gay couple whose feelings were hurt that initiated the case. It would help if you took the time to actually learn the facts about this case. But I suppose that is to much to ask.

  • Speaking of no morality to speak of.

    Your “weighing one’s actions against the real impact on others” is called situation ethics.

    Or more simply knowing what you like.

  • I agree with all of those excellent points. But you seem to have left out one very important teaching of Jesus, the very first thing our Lord said when he began His ministry: the necessity of repentance from sin (Matthew 4:17). We are all called to a life of repentance for our sins, and there is no special exemption for lgbt sins. We do no one any favors if we proclaim (and practice!) only some of Jesus’ teachings.

  • Yes, the procedural posture of these cases generally leads to state court because the antidiscrimination statutes are at the state and local level. State courts are entitled to decide constitutional issues. Six justices in Masterpiece, including Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch, signed onto an opinion that sent strong signals the Court would reject a non-free-speech claim of religious exemption. It noted that the baker conceded the state would have a strong case if someone refused to sell any cakes for a gay wedding, as opposed to a “custom” one implicating free speech rights. In Kennedy’s opinion, this was a critical factual discrepancy in the record. Phillips’s lawyer was asked hypothetically at oral argument if a gay couple came in, saw a cake on the shelf, and wanted to buy it, would there be a free speech issue? Counsel said no. She even conceded that if a premade cake had a Bible verse on it, a baker would have to sell it, under the free speech angle at least. But in the Court’s view (and this was something we were discussing about a week ago), the parties disagreed as to whether *Phillips himself* would do so, and this doomed a discussion of the merits of the free speech argument.

  • Always interesting how you define your religious belief by whom you hate. Bigotry being so fundamental that you claim those who disagree just hate God, rather than the more obvious conclusion of just being decent human beings.

    Oh well.

  • Actually it’s recognized by the courts (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas) but only in the negative.

    Laws specifically attacking gays are struck down. The failing to include them in existing laws is left open.

  • The term narrow ruling has nothing to do with the vote count. It means they decided a very narrow issue, the way the Colorado council handled the matter, as opposed to a wide issue, i.e. religious freedom in general.

  • Animus is just a gentler word for hatred. All of your favorite talking points in the mouths of the CCRC were characterized as anti-religious animus by the SCOTUS, and rightly so. “God-hater” is pretty good shorthand — and it’s in terms that you ought to be able to understand, after all, being of the side that is renowned for imagining haters everywhere they look.

    One thing your side is NOT renowned for is self-awareness, of course.

  • I already called your nonsense out with a direct quote from the decision. You balked. I have yet to see an honest or coherent argument come from you. Nor ever expect one in the future. Oh well.

  • You missed it too, eh? C’mon Spud, even with your limitations you ought to be able to do better than that.

  • That was silly, I was cutting and pasting from a full pdf of the decision and even left a link for you to verify it. Down to the page number.

    You are a very obvious l!ar. You are trying to pretend the decision said something else entirely. I do not expect an apology or acknowledgement of your error. You are not a decent enough person to do that.

  • “One thing your side is NOT renowned for is self-awareness, of course.”

    That made me laugh, coming from someone who lives in a huge pile of Sincerely Held Imaginary Truth.

  • You didn’t produce a direct quote from the decision and you know it. You produced a truncated quote copied and pasted from some liberal rag intended to reassure know-nothings like you that the SCOTUS is still 100% on your side.

    The truth is that the decision’s dicta (meaning no precedential value) acknowledges the strengths and the weaknesses of both sides of the 1st Amendment dispute, and simply declines to adjudicate them. That issue is going to be decided by a far less activist and more constitutionalist SCOTUS than this one. Kennedy knows that, too.

    I have yet to see an occasion where I am at all interested in what you consider honest or coherent.

  • You have been lying about this decision from your first post onward. You missed quite a bit here.

    But no, you don’t have a right to publicly demean people based on the class of individual according to every civil rights law out there.

    Unlike yourself I quoted the parts of the decision which support my argument. You are afraid to do the same. Go figure. Kennedy made it clear had he needed to decide on the merits, the baker would lose.

  • I am not the one who claims their beliefs entitle them to attack others with impunity nor claims personal hate has a supernatural sponsor. That us all you. I just point out how silly such assumptions are and how pernicious they are to decent moral folk.

    It has nothing to do with religion in general, but has everything to do with your garbage version of it.

    Somehow you consider yourself God and claim to speak for all believers. I find your arrogance here funny.

  • Direct quotes from Supreme Court opinions do not contain ellipsis, Einstein. Bluff better next time.

  • So. What about it. Blacks can’t create their own restaurants…their own buses………their own schools…..their own drinking fountains……….Why does the White man have to constantly take care of blacks.

  • Libby who calls faith-based disagreement “personal hate” doesn’t like to be called a God-hater. What’s wrong with this picture? ?

  • LOL. I quoted directly from the original source, the document issued by the Supreme Court, giving the relevant page and sections. Too bad you’re too lazy to actually look them up.

  • The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism. Max Horkheimer – Cultural Marxist Pioneer.

  • The situation described in your quote was not the situation in issue, Einstein. THAT is what your liberal rag’s ellipsis left out— deliberately.

    You either fell for liberal fake news or you deliberately misrepresented the decision. Which is it?

    No matter. You come out looking silly either way.

  • It would help if you took the time to actually learn the facts of life (virgins can’t give birth), but I suppose that is too much to ask. This baker chose to fight against the legitimate complaint made against him for discriminating against a gay couple, and he took his butthurt feelings all the way to the USSC. Gay people are being tortured to death in places like Chechnya, while Christians in this country quibble about cake decorations. You people are insane.

  • Funny how you won’t back up your views with quotes from the decision.

    Nope, you are still wrong here in all respects and apparently unwilling to support your views with anything other than “no it isn’t”. Oh well. It’s not like you wanted to be taken seriously anyway.

  • Not at all. You imputed your own view to something clearly not in the decision or quotes of them.

    For someone who claims not to lose,sleep over the recognition of LGBT rights, you seem to be going out of your way to claim a right to attack them. Even to the point of trying to spin alternative facts here.

  • Someone who believes that a virgin gave birth doesn’t like those who acknowledge the basic facts of life. What’s wrong with this picture?

  • Snowflake is so afraid of criticism that she has pretend to be God in order to avoid it. Sorry Shawnie, its not God which makes you behave badly, its all you.

    To use a quote from the underrated historical drama, Fat Man and Little Boy,

    “You should not play God, you are no good at it and the job is already taken” 🙂

  • You deliberately omitted the part where they said at the time marriage equality was not legal at that time, from the page two section (a) quote.

    You also missed the context of section (b) quote. In that case the baker would bake a blank cake and allowed the anti-gay customer to write their own message, and the customer refused.

    Sorry buddy, but the decision does not stand for the proposition you are trying to claim it does.

    Even funnier is your lack of knowledge of the context here. Justice Kennedy is the progenitor of LGBT rights in the Supreme Court. He is not Scalia. He is not going to contradict his own 20+ year corpus of decisions where he clearly found discrimination against gays to be a violation of 14th Amendment equal protections.

  • Why should I do your homework for you when it is so much more fun to watch you fail?

    Is that how you navigated high school?

    Here’s a hint, though. Go back and find the four omitted words that directly preceded your quote “if a baker refused to sell any goods…”. Which should be easy, if you’re quoting from the opinion itself.

    Of course, then you will have to explain why you omitted them. ?

  • If you know anything at all about me, Ms. Spud-Lare, it is that I am not at all disturbed by anyone’s criticism here, least of all yours. I would be more disturbed if you WEREN’T criticizing me.

    I am simply laughing at run-of-the-mill liberal hypocrisy.

  • You make the claim, I refuted it with a reliable source, you make excuses in response and flat out lie to my face about it.

    Oh well. Nice talking to you. You have nothing. Fair enough.

  • So much for your pretensions about quoting “directly” from the decision.

    Once again, the one who screams the most about dishonesty is the most dishonest one of all. But it is always so.

    Thanks for playing. Sorry you couldn’t finish.

  • Oh Great Prophet Shawnie!

    She has no personal views, she is simply giving us the Word of God directly! She is the sole voice who determines who is and is not a true believer of God! To disagree with her is to commit blasphemy and to hate God!

    I find your hubris amusing.

  • Its not like you wanted to be believed in what you say or claim anyway. Oh well. You clearly did not read the opinion or understand it if you were going to make such representations.

    You missed your chance to be taken seriously here. You can go back to lying to others about it. I couldn’t care less what you have to say in response here.

  • It is a sad fact of modern life that ancient writings can be easily co-opted by extremists to justify discrimination against minorities, or anyone else that they don’t like. You can’t say the word ‘sin’ around Christians at all anymore, without the Supreme Court getting involved. That’s how extreme Christianity has become, regardless of the original intent of the bible’s all-too-human authors.

  • I thank you for your comment and correction. I can be quite literal. Peace and good will toward you.

  • In that case you could always block me. Then you wouldn’t have to know the next time you’re made to look foolish.

  • Oh, so you don’t believe in evolution? Probably because your kind never evolve.

  • Those writings are, as you say, so easily co-opted, because they’re so ambiguous. I suppose that’s unintentional, though I suppose it’s inevitable, given that both OT and NT are collections of written material (and often, the same text re-written multiple times, by multiple authors) that reflects the views of the author of each individual book.

    Also, of course, what’s going on in these cases is that the bakers (et al) . are singling out one specific sin–they don;’t ask customers “have you divorced? committed adultery? ETC.”

  • I love your picture, but I wonder how many people here (or anywhere) recognize it.

  • They’re simply hysterical and looking for attention, desperate to justify their own existence as a religion, even though their beliefs are completely indefensible.

  • Howard, I am well aware of all the research. It”s right up there with “Why are we here?” and, “What is life?” Science proves only two sexes. Everything else is in the head. For every researcher who might agree with you, there are at least ten who don’t. For over twelve years , I worked closely with one of our area’s largest Mental Health Institutions; where the incurably mentally ill can not even acknowledge that they were ill. That also pretty much describes the typical gay person of today. When a person (and they are indeed persons) is incapable of acknowledging his/her illness, then they cannot be helped. Therefore, we rightfully accept them as they are into
    society. I only object when some try to convince me that they are a separate sex and worthy of special treatment. I refuse to be instructed by the mentally ill, be they in or out of the hospital.

  • 1. It would help if you learned the facts of life (The Creator of nature is not bound by the so-called laws of nature, and can -and does – supercede them whenever He wills.). but I suppose that is too much to ask.

    2. Based on the Supreme Court decision, the baker had a legitimate grievance against the Commission.

    3. Gay people are being tortured to death in places like Chechnya, while butthurt gays in this country quibble about cake decorations. You people are insane.

    4. Chechnya is a majority Muslim region, take your protests about it to Muslims, not to Christians.

  • You just proved to me you never even read the full document. And you proved Shawnie5 was right about you as well!

    Adios, Mr. Pants-on-fire!

  • Phew! You are some piece of work. Why do I suspect you must be as well a believer in some religion?

  • Actually you proved how lazy and dishonest you were being.

    Both you and Shawnie didn’t even bother to back up your claims in a credible manner. You specifically omitted parts within the same section quoted and Shawnie didn’t get off her duff and do anything worth a damn.

    I even found the section in the decision which completely contradicted
    your statements (pg 10, second para) and quoted it. Your remarks lacked the basic history and understanding of the person who gave the decision. Quote mining garbage at its plainest.

    Get back to me when you stop making Little Baby Jesus cry by bearing false witness.

  • In the section (a) quote, whether or not homosexual marriage was legal at that time was irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    In the section (b) quote, you clearly missed the entire point, which was that the commission upheld the bakers refusal to bake cakes they felt violated their consciences and sincerely held beliefs.

    So how many of those Pants-on-fire Awards have you got on your mantlepiece?

  • Little Mr. Pants-on-fire accusing others of “bearing false witness” – too funny!

  • 1. Fair. Hail Satan.
    2. And how’s that bakery doing these days?
    3. Fair. We’ll see you in court again over employment discrimination and equal access to medical treatment.
    4. Christians worked with Muslims to orchestrate the gay purge in Chechnya. I’ll take my concerns to both groups, thanks.

  • “,,,singling out one specific sin…”

    Oh baloney! If someone asked that baker to create a cake celebrating adultery, beastiality, or any number of sins, I have no doubt he would refuse them as well.

  • I can’t help it if you had to lie about what Justice Kennedy was saying.

    Something especially galling if you knew a thing about his prior decisions or read further on, where he demolished your premise.

  • If you were honest you would include the entire quote. But that wouldn’t help you at all with the fiction and quote mining effort here. You are lying about the relevance there.

    To quote exactly:

    His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful.

    Also if you knew a thing about Kennedy’s reference to:

    “State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive.”

    You would know it had nothing to do with the issues at hand on their own facts. Those involved bakers who were willing to bake the cake, but not make the message itself.

    By the way, false witness bearer, the end of pg 2 and beginning of pg 3 totally demolish your premise

    The Court’s precedents make clear that “the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.”

    “it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access togoods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law” (pg 9, section IIA, bottom)

  • You do no one any favors by shaming them just for being who they are. LGBT+ people are not sinners just for existing.

  • “LGBT people are not sinners just for existing.”

    True. They are not sinners just for existing. They are sinners for committing acts of homosexual sin.

    Adulterous people are not sinners just for existing. They are sinners for committing acts of adulterous sin.

    Etc.

    ALL need to repent of their sins. No exceptions.

  • Repent your sins of forcing your homophobic beliefs on others. This is not a theocracy, FYI.

  • 1. Silly, Satan is a creature (like you and me), not the Creator.
    2. You should ask them yourself, not me.
    3. Moore proof that you are insane.
    4. False. Christians are being killed by Islamic terrorists in that region, they don’t work together with
    them. Perhaps you would like to cheer them on?

  • 1. Prove it.
    2. According to your paramour, Bob Arnzen, they no longer make cakes. #JustDesserts
    3. “Robert Eads, a transgender man […] diagnosed with ovarian cancer, was turned down for treatment by a dozen doctors out of fear that treating such a patient would hurt their reputations.”
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Comfort_(2001_film)
    4. “Chechen police are reportedly pressuring parents in the region to kill their children who they suspect of being homosexual.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gay_purges_in_Chechnya

    I’m sorry, Christians are butthurt for some reason?

  • I do not force my beliefs on others. What an idea! You are free to sin as much as you want.

    True, this in not a theocracy. I am thankful for that. An American theocracy would be run by Evangelicals, and I am not an Evangelical.

    This is also not an LGBT-ocracy. I am thankful for that as well, as I am not LGBT.

  • You don’t have to be. You just have to afford LGBT+ people the same rights as everyone else, including the right to get married and be served in public accommodations. That’s democracy.

  • 1. Genesis 1.
    2. Then why did you ask me?
    3. Sounds like a case of medical malpractice, not religious malfeasance. The doctors should have
    treated her.
    4. Chechnya is a predominantly Muslim region, with its own legal code and police forces. Muslims
    run the show there, not Christians. So what was your point then in bringing this up? Was it that
    when gays are killed, it’s horrible (which it is), but whenever Christians are killed, its “butthurt”?

  • 1. I am not Christian, in case you could not tell.
    2. Rhetorical question: homophobes get boycotted out of business pretty quickly in the 21st century.
    3. Him.
    4. Gays are being targeted for genocide, not Christians. Call me when there are anti-Christian conversion therapists and concentration camps, your butthurtness.

  • While state courts are entitled to decide constitutional issues, they don’t set national precedence because they don’t have a final say.

    I am not a big “strong signals” fan.

    “Phillips’s lawyer was asked hypothetically at oral argument if a gay couple came in, saw a cake on the shelf, and wanted to buy it, would there be a free speech issue? Counsel said no. She even conceded that if a premade cake had a Bible verse on it, a baker would have to sell it, under the free speech angle at least.”

    Of course, that was the case.

    If we get to a point where states compel speech, there are going to be riots.

  • Personal repugnance wasn’t an issue in the case.

    Phillips did business with the same sex couple prior to this “event”. He simply refused to make a custom cake for a same sex wedding, not “just a cake”.

    The ACLU more or less set this up. They knew he had also refused to bake Halloween cakes, for example.

    They simply picked the wrong state and Civil Rights Commission for their “test” case.

    This Commission left such a trail of bigotry the case was over before it even got to the Supreme Court.

  • James 2:26 nails it……Believing in Jesus without good attitudes, works and deeds won’t amount to a hill of beans.
    James 1:22 helps things along……But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
    Religious freedom means I’ll do what ‘I want’ regardless of what is written down for us as our guide.
    So, what good attitudes, works and deeds should I perform towards the LGBT community and everyone else?
    Here are some of the best ‘attitudes, works and deeds’ you can find —
    1. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way…..Romans 14:13
    2. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God…..Romans 15:7
    3. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love….Ephesians 4:2
    4. …all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble….1 Peter 3:8
    5. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…..Philippians 2:3
    6. Be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone…..Titus 3:2
    7. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven…..Luke 6:37
    8. ABOVE ALL, LOVE EACH OTHER DEEPLY, because love covers over a multitude of sins…….1 Peter 4:8
    9. Let your gentle spirit be known to all men…..Philippians 4:5
    10. Don’t seek your own good, but the good of others…….. 1 Corinthians 10:24
    11. Follow after the things that make for peace……Romans 14:19
    12. In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets………Matthew 7:12
    13. Do to others as you would have them do to you………Luke 6:31
    14. Honor everyone……….1 Peter 2:17
    15. Continue to love each other……….Hebrews 13:1
    16. Be devoted to each other with mutual affection. Excel at showing respect for each other……Romans 12:10
    17. …let us do good to all people…………Galatians 6:10
    18. …have the qualities of [good] salt among yourselves and live in peace with each other……Jesus……Mark 9:50 [brackets mine]
    To be continued as more good attitudes, works and deeds are realized…

  • As I write this, there are 510 comments so far, and thus it demonstrates once again how the seething Christians
    are always eager to sling their Sincerely Held Imaginary Truth at gay people.

  • 1. I could tell. it is irrelevant.
    2. Yes, totalitarian lgbters target and shut down businesses of conservative Christians, just like the
    brownshirts (heavily homosexual, don’t ‘cha know?) targeted and shut down Jewish businesses in
    the 20th century.
    3. Sorry, men don’t get ovarian cancer.
    4. Oh, so it’s a numbers game? Only the group with the greatest number killed gets to say anything,
    and as for the rest, their deaths don’t matter, they just have to shut up and are “butthurt”? Better
    think twice if you want to play that game. In the 20th century, 45 million Christians were killed
    simply because they were Christians. And the killings continue in the 21st century. (“Christian
    killed every 5 minutes” by Michael de Groote, Deseret News, September 2, 2011)

    Personally, I prefer not to play your numbers game – because I deplore all genocides, not just
    those affecting my own group.

  • Even federal circuit courts of appeal then don’t set national precedent. The Supreme Court can’t rule on every possible issue of law.
    I’m not a big fan of predicting riots. I do not see that happening.
    And I don’t think Phillips’ counsel’s concession was obvious. One of the arguments in these cases has been that it would be expressive conduct to sell a cake with a Bible verse surrounding marriage, for example, to a same-sex couple, because that itself would be an expression of support for same-sex marriage. Phillips’s free-speech case came down to only the argument that baking the cake from scratch, no matter the design or any wording, was compelled speech. Other cases with other factual scenarios will have to be decided separately.

  • I believe the November, 2016, presidential election was a message.

    I don’t the intended recipients got it.

    If they don’t, I do see it happening.

    Phillips’ free speech case was not ruled on, instead a judgment was rendered on Colorado’s construction of a Civil Rights Commission without any acquaintance at all with civil rights and a hankering for knowing just what they like and don’t, and an elected judiciary who turned a blind eye to the record while sticking wetted fingers in the air as to what might sell in the next election.

    Monday’s Wall Street Journal took Justice Kenned to task for his continuing disconnect with the real world: “Kennedy saves a baker from anti-religious bias he said couldn’t happen.”

    “Four liberal judges aren’t content with the right to same-sex marriage; they want to coerce everyone else to celebrate no matter their religious beliefs …..”.

  • Woman are “caretakers” naturally. Although my father made the money; my mother truly ran the household and took care of each and every one of us. My dad was a dead beat dad with a check-book. But he did pay the bills. So you are right about women having to take care of men. Although in the past, it wasn’t like this. Think about the men who carved out Civilization out of the wilderness. Often alone without families. Awe inspiring.

  • “An American theocracy would be run by Evangelicals, and I am not an Evangelical.”
    Think about this sentence, and then imagine yourself in the place of a gay person.

  • The assessment of the Wall Street Journal is inconsistent with the decision and the oral arguments.

  • Obviously, you think nothing of how your anti-LGBT+ rhetoric leads to gay genocide. You are butthurt by trans people expecting to be called by their preferred names and pronouns, as well as gay people getting married.

    If this is the hill that you choose to fight and die on, so be it. Your entire religion will be boycotted out of existence. Sucks to be you.

  • Yes, exactly my point. It is not a good thing to be in a polity where one does not have any share in the “kratia” (power, rule). Both you and I would be at a disadvantage in an American Evangelical theocracy.

    That is why in general I prefer some form of democracy, in which as part of the “demos” I have some some say. Our American republic, a modified form of democracy, also has the benefit of having a “Bill of Rights” in its Constitution, an important safeguard of the people from its own government. Adjudicating between different rights, and the rights of different groups, though, can be tricky.

    I also tend to prefer the proportional representation of different parties (common in European countries) over the crude winner-take-all system of the US.

  • Not in my opinion it’s not.

    Ginsburg was ready to endorse Colorado’s decision, lynch mob and all.

    Sotomayor was right there with her.

    Kennedy droned on and on in his usual barely-connected-to-reality platitudes:

    “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

    =

    “Now, now, boys and girls and … well, act right, don’t pick fights, try not to step on each other’s wicks, neither a borrower nor a lender be, be not the first on whom the new is tried, but be not the last to cast the old aside, blah, blah, blah.”

    Dreck.

  • “That’s democracy.”

    No, it’s not. In the ancient Athenian democracy, only a certain class of the “demos” -adult, male, free-born citizens of Athens – had rights; others, not so much. In the American democracy/republic, slaves and women did not initially have equal rights. There are many types of democracy. Some are more restrictive – others are less restrictive – in what parts of the “demos” get a share in the “kratia”.

  • Sounds like only I deplore all genocides.

    It also seems that it is the trans people who get all butthurt when anyone doesn’t go along with their little delusion by calling a woman “he”, etc. But I, for one, refuse to be bullied into lying about it.

    “Your entire religion will be boycotted out of existence.” That didn’t work against the Jews in 1930s Germany. If it doesn’t work against Christians in 21st century America, will you move forward to the next step, a new “Final Solution”?

  • We’re just waiting for y’all to die of a heart attack, because you are completely heartless. We refuse to be bullied into validating the delusion of virgin birth.

    Trans people are butthurt about being denied access to medical treatment and outright murdered by Christians.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people

    This is what theocracy looks like:
    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/23/kansas-republicans-declare-war-on-transgender-people/

  • You seem perfectly content to deny the civil right of marriage to LGBT+ people, because you are butthurt by the mere fact that they exist. Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with your religious bigotry.

  • Never heard of the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses? Wow. I guess you never heard of kristallnacht either.

    Still playing the numbers game, huh?

    I will not lie and say that a woman is a man, or vice versa.

    I have written about theocracy elsewhere. I do not support it. Neither do I support lgbt-ocracy. Sorry.

  • Now you are simply lying. I have never denied the civil right of marriage to lgbt folks under US law. Why should I? It’s a civil matter. Civil weddings are not Christian weddings.

  • There is no LGBT-ocracy. You are just butthurt over losing your precious cis/het/white/male/Christian privilege, you whiny old toad.

  • You support denigrating gay people who wish to get married. You personally denigrate trans people just for existing. You equate boycotting a cake shop with exterminating Jews. You are insane, and totally butthurt, to boot.

  • Umm………………………..Yea! When a woman carries a baby to term; it is a natural response to want to be a ‘caretaker’.
    Btw…………are you Lesbian?

  • I am bisexual and genderqueer. I have an IUD in my uterus, instead of babies out of my vagina all the time, because I am not a brood mare. Are you one of those psycho Christians who equate abortion with murder?

  • Do you hook up with men just for sex? I doesn’t seem like you tolerate them very much. Why be ‘bisexual’ when you can just use a dildo with a female partner. Or do you tolerate ‘some’ men.

  • My partners’ genitalia are none of your business. You must not be getting any action, yourself, since you go around shaming other people’ sex lives.

  • “cis/het/while/male/Christian privilege”

    Maximum SJW wokeness achieved! Too funny!

  • It’s called “free speech”, dear. Grow up, get out of your bubble, and get used to it.

  • Yeah, gay and trans genocide is super funny (to you, anyway). There will be a reckoning for all that hateful rhetoric you people spew from your pulpits.

  • Shaming? I was asking a legitimate question. Seems you hate men. Which is fine with me. But then I was curious why you would be “bisexual”. Why even bother with men when a dildo would do just the same.
    As for your abortion question — I could care less what another individual does. I just don’t want to pay for it. No taxes should ever go to that elected surgical procedure. But………..do what you want…….I could care less.
    Also…………you have called me a bigot for my generalization of a people group. Are you then also a ‘bigot’ for your hatred of men? Seems you are equally a bigot under your own definition of words.
    All men have to be taken care of by women…………..or just some.

  • Seems you hate women. Why even bother with women, when your hand would do just the same?

    No taxes should go to Viagra for men, that elective boner pill.

    I hate Christians, not anyone of a particular gender, per se. So yes, I am anti-Christian.

  • What have I said that implies I hate women?
    I agree on your Viagra opinion.
    You said you are “genderqueer”. First time I’ve heard this term. You obviously have a vagina; so I’m curious, why or ‘when’ do you think of yourself as a male? Like using a strap on perhaps? Or…….using the Grill out back to cook meats?

  • When kids started calling me a dyke in 1st grade. The transition happened gradually from there. I switch back and forth, depending on the setting. For instance, I present almost exclusively as male when working as an engineer.

    As for you hating women, call it a hunch.

  • I wish I hated women. Women have thrown me off track my entire adult life! 🙂
    Seriously though…………I love women. I wish Polygamy was more acceptable. I’d have 5 wives if I could. 🙂

  • You are the one mocking free speech as “protected speech”, Fraulein Gauleiter.

  • You mock the free speech of trans people to identify as they wish.

    At least you admit that Hitler was bad, just not as bad as those “leftist commies”, eh?

  • 1. Genocide is never funny to me. Learn to read. I was referring to that “cis/het/blah blah blah”
    mantra. It’s you who are funny, in all your wokeness.

    2. We don’t have pulpits.

    3. “hateful rhetoric”…. I’ve never actually given a homily on the topic of homosexuality. It’s amusing
    that you actually think that’s what i spend my time on the bema talking about. The only times I’ve
    even referred to it is along with a number of other sins, such as adultery, stealing, lying, etc. At
    no time was anyone who heard me inflamed to go out and murder adulterers, thieves, liars,
    homosexuals, etc. You certainly have weird ideas about what I actually do; maybe from spending
    too much time in your own bubble of wokeness.

  • Nope, trans folk are free to call themselves whatever they wish. But my free speech is not compelled to agree with them.

    Of course Hitler was just as bad as the Communists of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and China. The fact that Hitler slaughtered less people than the Communists was due to the fact that he had much less time in which to do so.

  • More like spending too much time in Christian churches while growing up in Alabama.

  • When you deliberately misgender people, against their wishes, it’s sexual harassment, FYI.

  • Then you certainly have some weird churches there, if that’s what they spend their time preaching about!

  • Clearly, you are unaware of the existence of intersex people. “Look to the beam in your own eye before the splinter in another’s.”

  • The real question is: Why are you not, Howard. You also believe in some religion; and the god you worship is yourself.
    Of course, I don’t know everything. Nobody holds a monopoly on the truth.
    All faith begins with a choice. We choose what we believe.
    I am confident that one day we will all know the truth.

  • Thank you for showing us what a clear, careful thinker you are.

    TTBOMK, the evidence that homosexuality is genetic may not be 100% certain, but it very strongly suggests that homosexuality is genetic.

    Of course, if you’re a believer in god, then that raises a very embarrassing question: why would god do that?

  • I’m curious: who here has indicated that they “hate god”? Can you cite specific statements?

  • The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil. (John 7:7).

  • Gibberish.

    Given your hatreds and ignorant statement about gays etc, I had no doubt that you were quite familiar with the WORDS of the bible–tho of course, not the meaning of those words–and would eventually turn to it to justify your hatreds.

    Very sad.

  • You are correct in everything you say.

    A propos your last sentence, you may not be aware that in the ‘fifties, southerners cited the bible to justify their hatreds of African Americans. I vividly remember seeing pictures of Pastor BillyBob and his ignorant flock waving their bibles and ranting “Th’ baaaaahble sez….

  • If your claim is true, then it ought to be an easy matter to support it with facts, arguments, etc.

    I’m confident that you will not be able to make a cogent argument, or cite actual facts, to support your claim.

    As to “sin”, so is, for example, wearing clothing made of more than 1 fiber, eating cheeseburgers, etc etc (Leviticus).

  • Go to a pinterest dot com website called “Discover ideas about Men Wear”. There’s NOT ONE “guy who … wears white sheets and a hood … [in] Chechnya”! You don’t know your geography, do you now? But secular bigotry? Now that’s your in-house specialty, isn’t it? Just like the Commissioners’!

  • One conservative Bible Christian got it; you didn’t:

    “Editor’s Note: There has been confusion among some as to why reports from various outlets refer to the ruling as ‘narrow.’ ‘Narrow’ refers to the chosen scope of the ruling, and not the fact that the decision was 7-2. The justices did not explicitly reach whether or not people of faith may decline to create goods for same-sex celebrations, but rather simply noted that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission must be neutral toward religion in applying the law. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy outlined that ‘[t]he outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts’ with ‘tolerance’ to both sides of the issue.”

    Source: Heather Clark, “Supreme Court Rules for Colorado Baker Who Refused to Make Same-Sex Wedding Cake”, Christian News Network, June 4, 2018.

  • ‘White Jesus’ is a a constructed white evangelical theology to legitimate their delusions of the rightness of whiteness.

  • Pretty pathetic response. I regularly eat at a Black owned restaurant, for starters.

  • True, but sexual orientation is a protected class in the better states such as mine, and the “Masterpiece Cake” ruling doesn’t roll those anti-discrimination laws back one millimeter.

    The bigoted baker won on a technicality and still can’t discriminate against Gay couples wanting a wedding cake. So…either he’ll start working with Gay couples, or he won’t be baking wedding cakes for anyone at anytime…unless he moves his business to a hate state.

  • Here are the facts:
    From the CDC
    “Gay and bisexual men – referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 – continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV in the United States. However, from 2008 to 2014 the number of annual HIV infections among gay or bisexual men remained steady at about 26,000 per year, an encouraging stabilization after more than a decade of increases. To sustain and accelerate this progress, there is an an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV prevention programs for gay and bisexual men.
    A Snapshot
    Overall, MSM account for:
    • 56 percent (estimated 615,400 persons in 2014) of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States.
    • More than two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year (70 percent, or an estimated 26,200 infections in 2014).
    While CDC estimates that four percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among them is more than 44 times that of other men (rate ranges from 522 to 989 per 100,000 MSM compared to 12 per 100,000 other men).”

    Homosexual sex is destructive.

  • 1. I would not disagree with the statements and claims in the quote you provided. Next time, however, it would be nice to provide the source of that quote.

    2. Nevertheless, like most self-declared “Christians”, your hatred (gee, isn’t hatred condemned by Jesus? Didn’t Jesus preach love? Doesn’t god “love all his creations”?) has led you to look inaccurately at the situation, which of course means you did not address my question.

    The cause of AIDS/HIV is *not* homosexuality. The cause of AIDS/HIV is a VIRUS. It is TRANSMITTED in lots of ways–through sex (heterosexual, but more often, homosexual), through contaminated blood products (e.g. hemophilia), by surgical accidents (I know a very hetero surgeon who contracted AIDS as a result of inadvertently cutting his gloved hand), and in other ways.

    Homosexual sex is destructive SOMETIMES, Just like heterosexual sex is destructive SOMETIMES. (I know, for example, a gay couple who’ve been together 41 years, happily, with no diseases, etc. And others.)

    Please address my final comment: Leviticus specifies 600+ sins, including (I believe) homosexuality, but also mixing milk with meat, mixing fibers, eating shellfish, and many others.

    So please tell me on what basis you pick and choose what behaviors are “sinful”. I’m pretty sure you will ignore this request.

  • Excellent question to JP.

    TTBOMK, the condemnation of homosexuality lies in the OT, and Jesus or the OT says nothing about sex (tho he does condemn divorce).

    Note that I asked JP how he decides what is sin and what is not, based on Leviticus. I’m pretty sure he will ignore my request a second time.

  • I’ve always found it fascinating how the folks who are the most vocal about following Jesus, are also the most vocal in their condemnation of certain individuals and groups–gay people, transgender people, “elites”, “intellectuals”, “liberals”, and of course, in past decades, African Americans.

  • Suggestion:

    When you use the word “Christians” in referring to folks like JP, I think it is a good idea to put that identification in quotes, as I did above.

    I’ve always found that among those who identify in one way or another as “Christians”, the folks who are most vocal about being “Christians” are also the ones who seem to have the most peculiar understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

  • Leviticus was written for the OT Jews. Their food laws do not apply to Christians nor the church because Jesus declared all foods clean. The moral laws of the OT are still applicable to Christians and the church. The punishments that were commanded in the OT are not applicable today. Take adultery. It was punished by stoning in the OT but not in the NT. It is still a sin.

  • I see…so you’ve studied what mainstream, serious, respected scholars say about that?

    The more accurate term for your views is “cafeteria Christian”.

    One characteristic I’ve noticed about so many people who announce themselves as “Christians” is that they are absolutely full of hatred.

  • I don’t need scholars to tell me that. Just read both testaments.
    Not everything in the Bible applies today.
    I suppose some that claim Christ are full of hatred just as some of the lgbt crowd is full of hatred for Christians. Definitely see that in the frivolous lawsuits.

  • What a wonderful example of projection!

    I spend quite a bit of time reading various material, and I’m always on the lookout for opposing points of view.

    I’ve seen material from gay people who differed with “official” Xian views on homosexuality (especially the Sodom/Gomorrah story in the OT), but I don’t recall ever seeing any such material or opinion that was a blanket condemnation of Xians or Xianity, or that reflected any kind of hatred of Christianity.

    And of course, there are plenty of gay people who identify as Christians.

    OOPS–I should have said, who call themselves “Episcopalian” or “Methodist” or “Lutheran” or “Catholic”.

    Of course, as we know well, most of the people who refer to themselves as “Christians” are evangelicals, and don’t regard others (especially Catholics) as “real” Christians.

    And of course, I have to thank you for your comment about scholars. Anti-intellectualism is one of the hallmarks of evangelicalism and authoritarianism.

  • .
    Jenkins: ” . . . a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to design a cake for a couple’s same-sex wedding . . . ”

    This is a misleading mischaracterization of the actual event.

    The transaction had not even gotten to the stage of whether the couple wanted an “off-the-shelf” design or a custom design when the baker refused their business.

    The baker refused sell them a cake of any kind.

    That’s why there was no valid “free speech” basis to the baker’s defense — no “forced speech” was at issue.

    NBC News: “The ACLU, representing Mullins and Craig, said they never discussed with Phillips what kind of design, if any, they wanted on their cake, diminishing his claim that his freedom of expression was at stake.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/narrow-ruling-supreme-court-gives-victory-baker-who-refused-make-n872946
    .

  • Charlotte,
    I am.at least five times more aware of everything than you. You are are seriously ill, and never aware of this reality. I’m also very aware of the “beam” in my eye.

  • You are so wrong. Three of my closest friends ever are gay. However, never have they ever tried to convence me that they were healthy and normal.
    I was a musician; and they were great musicians; and that was all that mattered.

  • When are you going to stop reading from the same old script. Try saying something meaningful and original.
    Bet you can’t do it.

  • Facts, Howard. Stick with facts. There is not one shred of evidence that Homosexualism is genetic. The claim originated with Homosexuals seeking to justify their condition. We are all imperfect, you understand. So, the science community responded, “Perhaps you are correct. We cannot prove otherwise.” I can prove scientifically (as much as anyone) that you and I fo not actually exist.
    Next, I do not believe in god (there are so many of them); but I do believe God.
    “Why would he do that?” Well, Howard,
    perhaps he just doesn’t like you. (I jest.)
    I can only say that God is God, and I am not. He takes no instruction from me; and I really know so little about him..
    I may live for many more years, or my life may end tomorrow. How tragic. What a great loss to the world. Whenever it happens, I guess the real question is “Did God do something to me, or for me; or perhaps he did nothing at all.”

  • Obviously not, if you think you are “five times more aware of everything.” Who’s counting, here, homophobe?

  • There is an enormous body of evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Your statement above tells me clearly you will not accept any evidence I provide, so I won’t waste my time.

    Oh, hell, I *will* cite something, just to show how silly is your claim, but it will have to wait a few days, as I am leaving for a short vacation in an hour.

  • This is a very thorny issue. It’s discrimination vs religious belief and unfortunately, we have centuries of discrimination and persecution in the name of the religion that needs to be corrected. Perhaps Colorado went too far. But the problem is Mr Phillips and his lack of wisdom in handling the situation. What he should’ve done is turn the question around and tell the couple that he will make the cake, that he does not want to make the cake and why he doesn’t want to make the cake but that if they insist, he will make the best damned (pun intended) cake he ever made. I doubt the couple would insist and if they did, each bite would be food for thought for them (another pun). I think that would have been the loving, non-judgmental, Christian thing to do instead Mr. Phillips spilling his slightly sanctimonious milk. Never should have gone to any court and would’ve brought people into better understanding. Christians – instead of going down the road of being a new oppressed minority, you might actually change some hearts and minds.

ADVERTISEMENTs