Opinion

Indiana tax preparer shows limits and liberties of our post-Masterpiece Cakeshop world

Bailey, left, and Samantha Brazzel. Courtesy photo

(RNS) — Four years after Indiana adopted its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, prompting boycotts, bad press and an eventual amendment to avoid approving anti-LGBT discrimination, the state briefly returned last month to the debate when a tax preparer in rural Russiaville, Nancy Fivecoate, declined on religious grounds to prepare a return for a same-sex married couple.

Samantha Brazzel, whose wife, Bailey’s, returns had been prepared by Fivecoate before the couple was married, told The Washington Post that the couple left Carter Tax Service feeling “shocked, upset, and kind of hurt.” They shared their ordeal in a local Facebook group before it was picked up by local media.

Fivecoate told an NBC affiliate, “I am a Christian and I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.” She added, “I was very respectful to them. I told them where I thought she might be able to get her taxes prepared.”

But the story made barely a ripple in the national culture war for one happy reason: No serious religious freedom advocate stepped forward to defend Fivecoate. Conservative legal-defense groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom and the Becket Fund, which often rush to represent people with religious liberty claims, have said nothing about this story.

Is it too much to hope that the kerfuffle is a sign of a promising consensus against giving credence to baseless, purely discriminatory claims?

To answer that, we need first to agree that Fivecoate’s misguided insistence that her religious beliefs relieved her from having to assist Samantha and Bailey Brazzel almost certainly stems from the righteous ballyhoo on both sides after then Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed the RFRA in 2015. The tax preparer likely felt further justified by Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court case decided last summer giving Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for two men.

Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his shop on June 4, 2018, in Lakewood, Colo. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because his religious beliefs did not violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

Progressive opponents said then that carve-outs for wedding vendors and other kinds of businesses amount to a license to discriminate. That’s not as likely as what has happened in Indiana: that some conservative Christians, like Fivecoate, may now be primed to deny business services by default.

That’s not only a shame, it undermines the argument of people with potentially more legitimate claims — caterers, bakers, printers and other creatives whose artistic expression would be put in direct service of a ritual they don’t support.

It’s true that the line is not always clear between legitimate religious conscience claims and discrimination (that’s why religious freedom cases go all the way to the Supreme Court). But Fivecoate has no legitimate religious liberty defense. Filing a tax form is a public accommodation. If she has such strong beliefs about the sinfulness of unions outside of heterosexual marriage, Fivecoate would have to show a history of declining her services to all manner of what she would consider sexual sinners, which she makes no pretense to have done.

Having won their case in Washington, conservative leaders should perhaps do more to help people distinguish those situations. But it’s a start for them to show that there is indeed a principle at play in these cases and not a blanket defense of anti-gay animus. It’s a credit to traditionalist religious liberty advocates that there is a limit to their support.

Let us equally commend the Brazzels, who were clearly wronged in this episode. Bailey and Samantha reacted with shock and sadness, as anyone would. They expressed their hurt in a public forum. They raised awareness. And then they moved on, finding someone else to prepare their tax return.

The couple may be simply facing up to the fact that Indiana has no state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Where such laws do exist, plaintiffs and state civil rights commissions have sought punitive actions against business owners who declined service to LGBT customers.

But their response is a far cry from some other LGBT litigants, who have alleged that being on the receiving end of a service denial is a traumatizing assault on their dignity as a person, for which the only redress is to financially ruin a small-business owner. “We don’t wish any harm to her or her business, nor do we think she’s terrible,” said Samantha of Fivecoate.

A free society will continue to navigate tensions between LGBT people’s rights and those of religious traditionalists, so each may live in accordance with their beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender identity.

The latest Indiana episode was not a big deal because the tax preparer’s religious freedom was not infringed upon and because the wronged couple was gracious. And that’s something we can be thankful for April 15 and every day.

About the author

Jacob Lupfer

A contributing editor at RNS, Jacob Lupfer is a writer and consultant in Baltimore. His website is www.jacoblupfer.com. Follow him on Twitter at @jlupf. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of Religion News Service.

448 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “justified by Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court case decided last summer giving Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for two men.”

    Which it totally didn’t. But the Conservative Christian crowd wanted to pretend it did. In fact Justice Kennedy was downright hostile to the “religious freedom” claims beyond their mere existence. In fact the entire decision came down to merely criticizing the alleged attitude of the State Human Rights Commission rather than any sort of argument on the merits of Jack Phillips’s claim.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

    In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips’ rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission’s decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission’s lack of religious neutrality.

    “That’s not only a shame, it undermines the argument of people with potentially more legitimate claims — caterers, bakers, printers and other creatives whose artistic expression would be put in direct service of a ritual they don’t support”

    Its a BS argument from the get-go. There is no argument for a legitimate claim here at all, or ever. It is merely an excuse for typical discrimination on the basis of the class of people involved. Using religious belief as a pretext to claim the act is beyond criticism. Expecting the 1st Amendment to be privilege to break laws and attack people in the name of their faith.

    “Having won their case in Washington, conservative leaders should perhaps do more to help people distinguish those situations.”

    Why would they do that? The entire point here is to exert an undue privilege to attack people under the guise of Christian belief. The more expansive the ability to attack the better. It is not about freedom of religion or “artistic expression” or “supporting rituals”.

    This is nothing more than a plan for segregation of gays.

    “A free society will continue to navigate tensions between LGBT people’s rights and those of religious traditionalists, so each may live in accordance with their beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender identity.”

    A free society is one which does not permit religious belief to be used as an excuse to attack people with impunity under the law. Conservative Christians have no regard for religious freedom. All they want is special privilege over others.

  • Ah Tater, your enthusiasm is almost commendable – almost – oh wise (ahem) sage on his little stage!

  • “Let us equally commend the Brazzels, who were clearly wronged in this episode…”

    “But their response is a far cry from some other LGBT litigants, who have alleged that being on the receiving end of a service denial is a traumatizing assault on their dignity as a person, for which the only redress is to financially ruin a small-business owner. “

    Why, because they took the abuse and didn’t put up a fuss or seek legal recourse whereas other ‘uppity’ gays went to court to fight for their right? Boy, I’m ticked off at you Lupfer and all I can do is fume!

  • Since the Masterpiece Cakeshop case concluded noting the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had taken careful aim and emptied its six-shot adjudicative revolver into its own kneecaps, leaving the First Amendment issues unresolved but the State of Colorado on crutches, the case does not speak to this case at all.

    Nor is the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act relevant to this set of circumstances.

    Tax preparation, like legal work, like medical care, is a professional service which requires close cooperation with the client or patient.

    If in the professional’s opinion that service cannot be rendered consistent with professional duty, no excuse is required to refuse service.

    If at some point these individuals require representation before the IRS and/or Tax Court, they need someone who can provide that advocacy without reservations or qualms.

  • “But the Conservative Christian crowd wanted to pretend it did.”

    Not really, despite your constantly alleging they did.

  • Funny that you should drag in medical care… as history has shown that when medical care providers refuse to provide such services, people have literally died as the result (e.g. Tyra Hunter). Anti-LGBT discrimination kills.

    Your argument could equally apply to those racists or anti-semites who would turn away other classes of human beings… but we no longer allow such ugly behavior to be excused under the rubric of “freedom”. We know that hate is the real cause.

  • A free society is one which does not infringe religious beliefs using as an excuse a right which does not exist in the written Constitution.

  • It’s funny that you should drag – no pun intended – Tyra Hunter into this discussion.

    For those unfamiliar with the name:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter

    This did not involve ordinary medical care by a healthcare provider. These were poorly trained paraprofessionals:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140324052938/http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/damages-awarded-after-transsexual-womans-death.htm

    “The trial was riddled with unlikely testimony and missing evidence: E.M.T. Adrian Williams testified he assumed Ms. Hunter was a man as he approached her and rendered aid, failing to notice that she had breasts, make-up, women’s clothing, a woman’s hairstyle, and white nail polish. One subpoenaed D.C. General employee disappeared to Africa until late December. Important patient records were physically altered. Blood gas results and x-ray films were all lost.”

    In short, it was business as usual in DC and DC General Hospital, whose reputation is such that Federal employees in DC routinely ask to be taken to ANY OTHER HOSPITAL.

    So, let’s get back to the discussion and cut the emotional appeals, including referencing non-existent in this situation “racists or anti-semites who would turn away other classes of human beings”.

    We do in fact allow professionals to choose their clients and patients, Kay.

  • Mike Pence wasn’t Governor in 2018. I believe that Indiana’s RFRA was passed in 2015. The Federal RFRA was enacted in 1993

  • I don’t know what church the tax preparer goes to, but a parallel principle in the Catholic Church distinguishes between public and private sinners. Thus a public adulterer, who openly lives with someone they are not married to, should be refused Communion. while a sneaking cheater should not. The reason is the first is a public scandal, and giving Communion implies condoning adultery, making adultery appear trivial to others.

    I think this is part of the answer to the author’s comment about why she doesn’t refuse service to other customers who are committing other types of sexual sins. Gay couples are immediately visible sinners from a traditionally religious point of view, while a cheating spouse is not. The tax preparer is not required to hire a detective to check out all of her clients. She is only responsible for what she knows.

  • There is NO legitimate “conscience claim” when your business is labelled a public accommodation. This sort of claim was also made against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and blacks.

  • But tax preparation is THE BUSINESS!! It’s NOT “a public accommodation” any more than he cake shop is. They are BOTH businesses that are “OPEN TO THE PUBLIC”. The numbskull author of this piece is talking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to use the EXACT SAME rationale to justify the tax preparer HAVING to do her job as he’s using to justify the baker NOT having to do his.
    I hope, someday, “Christians” learn how logic and reason work instead of all the mental gymnastics into word salad they currently try to pass off as “an intelligent, well-reasoned, logical justification” for their bigoted stupidity.

  • The cake shop and this tax preparer are in a different class than, say, a motel or a restaurant.

    They are personal services.

    A bakery which has a row of identical chocolate cakes for sale is in the same class as the motel or restaurant.

    A cake designer who does special designs to order is in a different business.

    Personal professional services are not the same as public accommodations.

  • You might spend a few moments and find out how “public acccomodation” is defined.

  • Regardless of the Masterpiece case or any similar case for that matter, as a private business owner, let me decide how I should run my business, you decide to boycott or not. Let the people decide, not unelected officials who have no basis to do so in the first place as marriage is not a Constitutional issue and is not a “right”.

  • More importantly gays are a group which he can specifically discriminate against in open commerce thanks to the laws on the books. They are an identifiable class who are under a measure of legal segregation in IN.

    This has nothing to do with “sin”. This has to do with bigotry. Using religion as an excuse to be malicious to others without fear of social consequences. He shouldn’t be treating anybody in such a fashion, regardless of what one thinks of their individual “sins”.

  • That is was what always people said to support segregation. It doesn’t wash.

    The business is not entirely private. It is open to the public, it is open commerce. If you are open to the public, you have a duty to serve the public. You don’t get to pick your customers based on the class of people they are

  • You are correct to an extent. To be blantantly discriminatory based on orientation is one thing. I don’t agree with that business practice (I’m just saying, let individuals, not government, decide that outcome). But to say that I don’t agree with a couple because I do not agree with marriage redefinition is not the same.

  • No you are dead wrong here. This is nothing more than a new iteration of segregation.

    You even just recycled the same arguments used in support of it verbatim from 50 years ago.

    This is not about sin, or approval of for marriage or Christian belief. None of that is the business of a purveyor of goods and services in open commerce. Just because the nature of the prejudice has changed, the immoral nature of the discriminatory conduct has not.

    It is about people taking an opportunity to discriminate without legal consequences.

  • Spuddie, buddy, you are living in the past. We do not live in a segregated, racist society anymore. I have studied cases like this now for the past 10 years or so. In nearly all of these cases, it’s not the fact that the business owner is deciding to be blatantly discriminatory due to ones orientation. Look it up. In each case the business owner did in fact service said individuals. It wasn’t until the notion of the said customer of business came to the business owner with the directive to have a service done or product made for a very specific purpose–a same sex wedding–where the business owner objected and refused service. Marriage has a very specific meaning to many people and the majority of Americans still agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of what a few individuals with robes try to tell us is correct. There is nothing “immoral” about refusing to be forced to bake a cake, rent out grounds for a ceremony, or not agree with filing a same sex couple’s tax return. On the contrary, it would be immoral for those owners to be forced by their government to go against ones conscience.

  • No, you are not only living in the past, you are repeating the same crap people used decades ago to support the same action. Denying people goods and services from open commerce on the basis of legally sanctioned bigotry.

    You need to study harder because in all of these cases there was no recognized religious expression in the discriminatory conduct. The author got Masterpiece entirely wrong.

    Changing the subject of prejudice doesn’t change the nature of the act. No vendor of goods and services has any business to delve into the personal lives of their customers.

    You are so full of crap. Nobody is “forced” to treat all customers alike with the most basic level of professional courtesy. It is their profession. If they weren’t willing to serve the entire public and all classes of customers, they should not do business in the open. There are various ways to do business that would not bring the obligation to serve the entire public.

    There are obviously people like yourself who are so bigoted and uncivil that they feel a need to attack people for their own amusement. Ones who are so deranged they cannot follow the most basic rules of society when it comes to dealing with others.

    They can get bent. They are immoral whiny babies looking for excuses to act badly and are too spineless to face the consequences if their actions.

    You are nothing more than a segregationist with a new class of victims.

  • “On the contrary, it would be immoral for those owners to be forced by their government to go against ones conscience.”

    In the context of your comment, “conscience,” is a euphemism for “bigotry.”

  • Segregationist?? I haven’t attacked anyone here! For those folks just joining us here, this guy’s coming unhinged for me simply stating my opinion. W o w.

  • You found the problem, Spuddie thinks it’s just an orange colored apple. Throw it in the pie and no one will know the difference.

  • All citizens are apples, and all businesses must serve all apples equally and without prejudice.

  • Wow. You have made an incredible leap with this statement. So, I should be forced to do something against my will, against what I believe to be morally correct and I’m a bigot for having said conscience?? You libs never cease to amaze me. So if anyone is were allowed to have a conscience, it should only be approved by you, the State or Spuddie?

  • You want legal permission to deny access of a class of people to goods, services and government agencies on the basis of personal bigotry. That’s segregation.

    You even recycled the same exact arguments for segregation.

    Your sole argument is that your brand of bigotry is different from racism. Well that means squat. You still seek the same goals as racists back then did. To treat a class of people as social inferiors and exclude them from participation in society in your presence.

    You are just not used to people calling out your canned nonsense. If you feel offended by such candor, tough luck.

  • “Says the white straight guy”. Marriage IS A BASIC human right, which had been denied us until 2015. We know how much radical Catholic and Evangelical Christians hate us, and personally, I don’t care. Hate we queer folk all you want, you hypocritical bigots and irredemptive sinners. But when you start trying to turn your hate into public policy, then I have a problem. Also, if you don’t want LGBTQ customers, in order to exercise your RFRA rights to hate us and deny us goods and services, you should be required to list on your website and front door all the types of people, including we queers, that you refuse to serve. Let EVERYONE know who you really are. You can’t hide behind your bigotry AND do business with straight folk who wouldn’t do business with you if they knew of your hatefulness. Religious bigots and segregationists don’t get to have their piece of cake and eat it, too.

  • You are not a business. Citizens have rights that businesses do not. Were you not aware of the distinction?

  • Marriage is a basic human right? Really? Show me where in the Constitution where this is stated. As a Christian and as a person who has both gay relatives and a couple gay people that even attend my church I can tell you that we don’t hate anyone. I know you’re emotional about this issue. I get it. But marriage is sacred to many people and many people do not agree with it being redefined. That’s all.

  • “Marriage redefination” is code switch language. We aren’t redefinng marriage. We just want it to apply to us in American civil law as it does for all Americans. I know you’re an anti-LGBTQ troll; you’re here for argument and to hurt people, and I won’t play your silly little games, troll.

  • I’m here to hurt people?? Hardly. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Or are you just interested in opinions you agree with? Gays already have equal protection under the law. That is, regardless of your orientation, any man can marry a woman and vice versa. By asking for a provision for a man to marry a man or woman to marry a woman you are asking for the law to be redefined. So, yes, that is what’s happening here. Marriage by any definition is not found in our Constitution. Marriage has a been a sacred union between man and woman long before our founding father were even born.

  • Anti-LGBTQ trolls and Christian extremists are now overrunning this thread, but honestly, if you hold that persons with a public license (sales, law, retail licenses and credentials) are and should be able to discriminate against a class of people at will, you’re parroting the old bigoted and hateful “separate but equal” line of segregationists. If you think LGBTQ people shouldn’t be served because of who we are, you’re advocating for two classes, one with all rights (cis het folk) and one with fewer (us queers). Segregation has always failed and this, too, shall pass. I don’t care a fig about your sophistries that it’s not the “people” that you want christian hatemongerers to object to selling to, it’s the “kind” of marriage. But here’s where that pseudo-logic breaks down. Who is in a same gender marriage? Who’s in a queer marriage? Queer people, THAT’S who! So you’re using marriage as a tool to discriminate against us, even though we won Obergefell and you bigots lost!
    Give it up.
    You look just like the angry inbred white Southern mobs in pictures from the 1950’s. You lost the Civil War, you lost the battle for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and you’ve lost the battle to keep us from exercising our Constitutional rights like every other American.
    Take your energy and redirect it towards feeding the poor, building housing for the homeless, funding healthcare for your brothers, sisters, and siblings.
    You know……all that stuff Jesus commanded you to do.

  • You sound like this: “I can’t be racist, I have a Black friend!” Lol. Pathetic. Just own it…. you’re a hatemongering anti-LGBTQ bigot. Be proud of it, like the guys in red hats and white hoods. Own it. Don’t hide who you are. Come out of your Kristian closet. Lol.

  • This case is not really analogous to Masterpiece Cakeshop. The tax preparer is not being asked to create anything celebrating same sex marriage, but only to note on the appropriate forms that the couple is legally married. Contrast this with Masterpiece, where the requested service entailed making a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, refused the job, only because of WHAT was requested, not WHO was making the request.

  • “But marriage is sacred to many people and many people do not agree with it being redefined.”

    So I guess sacred SACRED is the Sanctimoniously Absolute Christian Right to Eagerly Discriminate.

  • Sorry, Mr. Bigot, but you’re wrong. My marriage to my wife (partner for 26 years) in the eyes of the post-Obergefell ruling is just as good as yours. I know how much you hate and reject that.
    Also…..our marriages are better and happier than yours, lol. Our divorce rate is less than half the rate for Evangelical Christian divorces (the highest rate), and married heterosexual women report marriage satisfaction rates of only 43%, at 5 years, whereas all female married couples have a satisfaction rate of 72%.
    You can’t keep us away from our marriage, adoption, and other Constitutional rights. We are American citizens, we have won, and we’ll continue to win despite your hatred.

  • Sorry, Jaimie. I’m not a racist and I do not hate anybody. You don’t even know me. You are just reacting out of emotion. You obviously only surround yourself with those you agree with.

  • Folks, meet Richard the atheist and anti-Christian zealot. See how jumping to conclusions works both ways?

  • I don’t care about data. Divorce happens when flawed humans make mistakes and are selfish. It’s not hate to stand for what is right. I agree to disagree.

  • All you need to do is get the civil rights act of 1964 repealed, as well as the laws at every level of government which forbid discrimination on the basis of regions belief.

    Then you’ll have an argument.

  • It’s not redefining marriage, it’s redefining gay people as no longer your emotional, sexual, moral, religious, cultural, legal, spiritual, and familial inferiors.

    “I know some gay people” is not an excuse. Moreover, you insist that people who don’t share your very religious views about marriage, but nevertheless also consider marriage sacred, do not get the same play in the public square as you.

    As for sacred, when you outlaw divorce, remarriage after divorce for any reason other than adultery, and criminalize adultery, you might have an argument for it.

  • As do you, as indicated about your special church where you even allow gay people to attend, as long as they don’t insist that their lives are every bit as valuable as yours.

  • At least “… gays are a group which he can specifically discriminate against in open commerce thanks to the laws on the books.” supports the conclusion that, for once, you actually familiarized yourself with the law.

    If it is legal, it is hard to argue that it is bigotry.

  • The same old nonsense arguments. If bob can marry sue, and Jane can marry John, they have the same rights. But if Jane can’t marry sue but bob can, then they don’t have the same rights at all.

    Here’s an idea that has the same merit. Everyone must join your particular denomination. Everyone has exactly the same rights, to belong to YOUR denomination.

    Marriage was a civil institution is Rome. It was a civil institution in the Massachusetts bay colony. It is a civil institution in much of the west, most of the time.

  • Wow, Ben, how does not agreeing with the notion of gay marriage = insisting gay human lives are less valuable than mine? You’ve made quite a leap there.

  • Marriage has a very specific meaning to some people. good for them.

    Now show me in the constitution where that “very special meaning” is a protected civil right.

  • Aww, bill, have you blocked me yet?

    The civil rights act of 1964 protects everyone from religious discrimination. It has been found to conform to the constitution by the Supreme Court.

  • That’s just my point. Marriage, whether straight, gay or otherwise, is not a protected civil right. Nothing in our Constitution would lead one to believe this is so.

  • If Bob can marry Sue, and Sam can marry Sue, but not both at the same time, Bob and Sam have the same rights.

    If Bob can marry Sam, they have new and different rights.

    Were did these new rights come from?

    Marriage was a civil institution in Rome and in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

    In both Bob could marry Sue, and Sam could marry Sue, but not both at the same time.

    In neither could Bob marry Sam.

    The reason why that was so is important.

  • But equality before the law is. And that is the basis on which obergefell was decided.

  • That may be so but it’s the states that license marriages. The states may, with the consent of the people, redefine it at anytime as the states are not bound by religious definitions. You don’t have to like it, but it is legal.

  • Correctly: “My marriage to my wife (partner for 26 years) in the eyes of the post-Obergefell ruling is just as legal as yours.”

  • Nationally that would be all businesses of public accomodation for the reasons provided in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which does NOT include sexual preference.

  • Really? So you,re just saying that we’re not entitled to the same rights as citizens, the same protection for our families that a three times married pussy grabber has the next time he wants to marry someone, that our assets are not as valuable as yours, that our children do not require the same legal protection that legally married parents would give them, that our faiths which declare our marriages as sacred as yours are really not as good as yours, that our participation in society is open to question if we don’t share your faith based assumptions…

    And that is not the same thing as saying our lives are not as valuable as yours?

    You’ve made quite a leap there.

  • No, the states may not redefine it at anytime because the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling took that away from them.

  • S
    Discri I ation on the basis of religious belief. EVERYTHING ING to do with it, mark.

  • Show us where in the Constitution the right to be happy is provided, which was the basis for the Obergefell decision.

    The regulation of marriage was not given to the Federal government.

  • But equality before the law ALREADY applies, as I had stated before. Half of the supremes got it wrong and pulled so-called Constitutional marriage “equality” out of thin air.

  • You do not have a constitutional right to compel him NOT to hold the opinions that he holds.

    You’ve made quite a leap there.

  • The case at hand does not involve discrimination on the basis of religious belief, nor is a professional tax preparer a place of public accommodation, Elagabalus.

  • And as I stated before, no, we don’t have the same rights. You have the right to marry any woman you want, but sue does not have the right to marry any woman she wants.

  • Oh, you can find that in natural law, which is the basis for all law, according to Art/Bill/Bob/Mark/Brainon/Utah/Jose/David/Draco/DR. I mean, dearie, you just told me this the other day.

  • Ben, you are ALREADY entitled to the same rights as citizens granted under the Constitution. I think you are confusing basic human rights with the institution of marriage. I’m not arguing against basic rights, I’m arguing against marriage redefinition.

  • As Jason correctly points out, Sue – thanks to Obergefell v Hodges – has the right to marry any woman she wants, and did.

    Your complaint is that some people don’t like that.

    Get over it.

  • I would agree that Natural Law is the basis for our rights under the Constitution, which is the basis for our laws.

    You’re certainly free to propose a competing basis for rights and laws, Ben/Elagablus/David/Jaimie/etc.

    In fact I wish you would.

  • I would suggest you click on Ben’s ID and read some of his 36,000 plus posts to date before proceeding.

    He operates under the theory that he has all the rights, you have no rights, and not only does he have the right to marry anyone he damned well pleases, he has a right to make you like it.

  • Exactly, Jim. The states, the voters should decide, not a court. Before the court started pretending to be the Legislative branch, we had laws in 33 states that defined what marriage was and was not. They try to lump marriage in with civil rights and when marriage of any kind is not a right. This is wrong. Voters should decide this issue, not the courts.

  • As things stand the correction will require amending the Constitution.

    There is at least one draft amendment out there correcting this overreach along with the Roe overreach and making it clear there are no rights hidden in any “penumbra”.

  • The tax preparer may be called upon to defend the taxpayer before the IRS and/or the Tax Court.

    As a professional, not a public accommodation, the preparer should not undertake the work unless he or she could competently and willingly do that.

  • In point of fact anti-Christian LGBT trolls and anti-Christian extremists are now overrunning this thread.

  • Unless the individuals involved are identifiable from birth to death at 20 paces as the discriminated against class, it is NOT a new iteration of segregation.

  • Art, where have I said anything against religious belief?
    Have I said I hated the Christians who want to take my marriage, my job, my life?
    Nope.
    I just said I’d fight for my rights as an American citizen.

    Or are you saying that bigotry is intrinsic to your worship, therefore you view anti-bigotry, pro-LGBTQ civil rights work as inherently hateful because it disrupts your necessary hateful expression?
    Hey….. that’s on you.

    I’m actually pretty careful to name Evangelicals and Catholics. I know for a FACT there are MANY Christians who support us and support LGBTQ equality, some Presbyterian sects, ELCA, some independent Baptists, Episcopalians, UCC (ONA), non-UMC Methodists, Independent Catholic Churches, MCC, Unitarians. There are MANY who self-describe as Christian who stand with us. At the last STL Pride parade, over 20 churches marched with us.
    It’s not just non- Evangelical, non-Roman Catholic faith groups who support us. CAIR and many Islamic Foundation Centers are LGBTQ welcoming Islamic places of community and of worship, and most Reform Synagogues are LGBTQ accepting.
    Most Wiccan covens and most Pagan Faith’s are LGBTQ affirming (except some Odinist circles).
    Many types of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism/Daoism are also LGBTQ welcoming.
    So don’t act like you OWN religion, and OWN probity, and OWN faith because you don’t.
    All you own outright is your own prejudice.

  • No, same sex marriage is NOT a basic human right.

    It was a SCOTUS-fabricated “right” that has no legal antecedents.

  • It isn’t legal, that’s why a majority of Federal Appellate Courts have ruled that anti-LGBTQ bigotry is illegal under the anti-sex discrimination ban language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Eventually the SCOTUS will have to rule on the merits of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and either uphold LGBTQ inclusion or strike part or all of the law down, as the conservative majority did to the Voting Rights Act.

  • All you own outright is your own prejudices.

    “…. where have I said anything against religious belief?”

    Hmmm …. “Anti-LGBTQ trolls and Christian extremists”.

    Apparently Christian extremists refer to the largest groups of Christians in the world: the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, the Southern Baptists. All “Christian extremists”.

    Yes, that saying something against religious belief.

    “Or are you saying that bigotry is intrinsic to your worship..”.

    More bigotry.

    The belief that same sex physical congress is immoral in the Abrahamic religions goes back 3,000 years and is shared by Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and by far the majority of Christians.

    Saying it’s bigotry is bigotry.

    So, cut the bigotry crap and just belly up to the counter and say you want what you want, how you want, right now sans poses.

  • No, “a majority of Federal Appellate Courts have” NOT “ruled that anti-LGBTQ
    bigotry is illegal under the anti-sex discrimination ban language of the
    1964 Civil Rights Act”.

  • YOU should take your own advice.
    BOTH the tax preparation device AND the cake shop are retail establishments that are “OPEN TO THE PUBLIC” for the purpose of providing goods and/or services to generate income for the owners.
    SCOTUS didn’t rule “in favor of” the baker — They simply remanded the case back to the state courts, saying they had been unduly critical due to Mr. Phillip’s religion. IN NO WAY did they uphold what Phillip’s did, & we should thoroughly expect to see this work it’s way back to SCOTUS in the future.

  • Of course you are. right wing Christians have repeatedly informed me that marriage is a fundamental building block of society, without which, society will crumble, that religion is a personal right guaranteed by the constitution and sacred as anything can be.
    Your marriage has not been redefined, I merely have the same rights that you do. You can still get married as often and badly as you wish, and it has absolutely nothing to do with me, or the sacredness, by which you mean, you have rights that I don’t.
    As I already pointed out, it isn’t marriage that is being redefined, it is ME as a gay man, and my friend Sheera, as a gay woman, that has been refined, as no longer your inferior.
    and you don’t like that one bit.
    maybe you can explain how my marriage affects yours, or prevents you or any other heterosexual from getting married, or affects your beliefs about marriage, or affects your church, or has any affect on your life except to offend you that the figs are now legally equal to you. Because unless you can show that, your claims about redefinition mean nothing

  • True, but I don’t think that defending the client in terms of the tax return would entail anything that celebrates the marriage. For tax purposes, it is sufficient that the marriage is legal. It is irrelevant whether it is “good”. In Masterpiece, on the other hand, the baker would have had to make something that celebrates the marriage – essentially something that says the marriage is “good”.

  • This site has nothing to do with religion, except to attempt to bash it. You should call yourselves “deviant rights news”.

  • Most actual AMERICANS don’t hold that “persons with a public license” are thereby obligated to serve sex perverts. Sorry, but decent people are hoping that this indeed becomes the norm.

  • NO wedding cakes are created “en mass”– nor are tax returns. The pertinent point is that BOTH are retail businesses open to the public for the purpose of generating income. Any business open to the public — that is to say, NOT a private/”members only” club — can NOT discriminate against any customer. Businesses are considered artificial people for business & tax purposes, and are separate from any owners/ operators; therefore, they have no religious affiliations of their own, and cannot have the owner’s religion foisted upon them.

  • Ben, with the court affirming gay marriage, that now has made [real] marriage less special. I’m sorry, but a gay marriage will never equal a marriage. I’m not saying you cannot love your same sex partner. You can love someone and not be married and nobody can stop you from doing that. But you misunderstand what marriage is, as ordained by God. Marriage is between a man and woman. It doesn’t mean, as a human, you’re inferior to anyone else. It just means that marriage is what it is.
    Just like the sky is blue or the grass is green and the high court has no right to decide that.

  • Every tax return is a unique document. Just like every wedding cake is. She would be preparing the tax return for a couple whose lifestyle she does not agree with. Just like Masterpiece would have been doing. If religious people truly have sincerely held beliefs then they need to be defended as such, and those beliefs need to be fleshed out and the believers need to be held accountable to how sincere those beliefs are. Philips betrayed the sincerity of his beliefs because he said he was willing to provide other baked goods to gay people. We can see right through his “sincerely held religious beliefs”. The couple in Masterpiece did not request anything different than any other couple getting married. The couple in IN requested a tax return, just like other couples requested.

  • As a matter of law it is sufficient that the marriage is legal.

    That’s a separate issue than the advocacy required on the part of an advocate for a client in quasi-judicial or judicial forum.

  • Atheists bash the conservative christians.
    Conservative Christians bash atheists.
    Conservative Christians bash Liberal Christians.
    Conservative Christians bash other religions (including LDS, JWs)
    Protestants and Catholics fight each other
    Conservative Christians bash Islam
    Muslims are hands off for Liberals
    Everyone ignores Hindu articles

    Did I miss anyone?

  • Oh, so you’re saying all we LGBTQ people are “sex perverts”?
    You’re not helping your case very much; your own words look pretty hateful, lol.

  • Who are you referring to?
    Look, you can support LGBTQ equality and not be antichristian. In fact, most allies of our community ARE christian, so you’re really all wrong, and I resent your insinuation that all Christians hate we LGBTQ folks as much as you do. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics oppose our basic human rights, but many Christians do not.

  • BTW, I’m an American, I’m queer, and even though I’ve traveled the world and speak four languages, I’m still an American, lol. I’m sorry that hatred and prejudice are causing such sorrow in your life.

  • My but you hate us a lot, lol! I personally find you immature and silly, but I don’t hate you. Well, I’m done here, I have important lesbian things to do!

  • No, I genuinely think my marriage is better than yours, because my marriage is blessed by the Goddess herself. I’m sorry that you’re so wrong.

  • The tax preparer has no leg to stand on. They are not participating in a marriage ceremony. They do not get a general license to discriminate.

  • …but how can the people decide if the elected officials we decided to place in a position to decide for us aren’t allowed to decide? You’ve already decided that the people’s decisions are invalid, so what are you even asking for?

  • No sorrow for anything but the sin and evil you embrace. You are not American, since you hate America. That’s just my standard, but it works for me.

  • You only missed my whole point, lol! What is this article about? Not religion, but the rights of libertines to enforce slavery against their neighbors.

  • I think that’s self evident. I have no obligation to explain myself to you, and intelligent people understand.

  • You can say what you will from a place of hatred; it suits you. But I”m quite far from poor and farther from benighted, lol.
    Some quotes for you:
    “Vengeance is MINE, sayeth the Lord!” and
    “My greatest command to you is to love one another, as I have loved YOU.”

  • No, Phillips did not “betray the sincerity of his beliefs”. His beliefs do not say it is wrong to serve same sex couples or gay people. They only say that he should not make anything that celebrates sin. Selling them “other baked goods” does not violate that belief. But making a cake celebrating same sex marriage does. His policy is thus completely consistent with his belief.

  • That makes no sense. There is nothing about a wedding ceremony that celebrates sin. If he thinks homosexual relations is a sin, then he cannot in good conscience sell other baked goods to a couple who will enjoy them together and then (in the conservative Christian mind) have wild gay sex.

  • Oh well, any intelligent person will read the article and see that it is actually quite pro-religious belief. Oh the sad state of our country with regard to conservative “intelligence”… 🙁

  • Also, btw, when you make an outrageous claim, you actually do have an obligation to justify it. Just because Trump bandies about falsehoods on the daily doesn’t make it right.

  • “If she has such strong beliefs about the sinfulness of unions outside of heterosexual marriage, Fivecoate would have to show a history of declining her services to all manner of what she would consider sexual sinners. . ..”
    Nope. . . the only tax situation in which “sexual sinfulness” would be clear is a joint return with two spouses of the same gender. This isn’t true of “non-permitted” divorce, fornication, polyamory, etc. — none of those other things can be evidenced from a tax return.

  • I bet she has prepared tax returns for adulterous couples and couples who have used birth control and had oral or anal sex….shame on her.

  • Sure, I’d agree with you. But none of that stuff shows up on a tax return, so she could prepare it without having any idea about what those people have been doing.

  • No sexual sin shows up on a tax return. Unless she is a secret pervert and inquires about the ins and outs of her clients, she has no idea what “sin” the folks are up to. She’s just a typical hypocrite. These folks just need to be proud of the fact that they just dislike gay people and stop couching it in some pretend religious belief about the sanctity of “marriage”.

  • Oops – I lied – there is ONE sexual sin that DOES show up on a tax return. Alimony payments.

  • A “marriage” has the connotation of a full physical union — something disallowed for two people of the same gender, according to the Bible, and therefore “sinful” according to the Bible.

  • No, divorce is permitted in the case of adultery, so it is possible to do a return for a divorced person without taking part in or affirming any sin.

  • That means you are aiding and abetting an adulterer. And that is fine for Christians (because at least a third of them are adulterers lol).

  • Nope, the Bible allows divorce in certain cases. So a divorced person is not necessarily sinful for a divorce that has occurred. The Bible never allows sexual activity between two people of the same gender.

  • Jesus was clear on the issue actually. But regardless, if the divorce is allowed for adultery, then you are supporting that sinful person by preparing the tax return.

  • There is actually nothing in the bible that speaks about gay people in a marriage…at all. The only references to homosexuality have nothing to do with relationships. They have to do with idolatry and temple prostitutes.

  • I find it funny that you pawn off something as mind reading when plain reading of your posts suffice.

    Your intentions were made clear by what you said and how you said it.

  • No. Making a cake for a “sinner” celebrating his favorite baseball team is not the same as making a cake that celebrates his “sin”.

  • Craig and Mullins did. He believes same sex marriage is wrong. So asking him to create a cake celebrating same sex marriage is asking him to make a cake celebrating something he thinks is wrong.

  • They asked for a wedding cake (something Philips makes regularly – for “sinners” all the time). The wedding cake does not celebrate sin…again, ridiculous to think it does.

  • Did they request a cake to celebrate their marriage?
    Is their marriage a same sex marriage?
    If the answer to both questions is yes, then they were requesting a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Logic 101.

  • Just because a person can prepare someone else’s tax returns does not mean the preparer knows how to THINK.

    The term “pea brain” comes to mind here.

  • I agree, the Bible doesn’t address gay marriage. It just condemns same-gender sexual activity. Your view that the Bible references are just about idolatry and temple prostitutes is an extra-biblical assumption, as neither the relevant verses themselves nor the context indicate that to be the case.

  • True – they are not easily discernible by the plain language. Little is in the Bible. I mean, I bet you think rich folks can get into heaven but the plain language of Jesus himself says otherwise. Unless…you look at context. Context might indicate otherwise. As it does with the verses related to same-sex activities.

  • It’s not wrong to you, and it’s not wrong to me. But it is wrong to him (Phillips).

  • He was extremely clear, you’re right. But a tax preparer can prepare a tax return without knowing a particular person is divorced, and thus the preparer is not validating that person’s divorce. S/he cannot do the same for a joint return with two men/two women.

  • Okay. But that said, if she sees alimony payments she should stop the return and tell them to find another tax return preparer. As long as s/he is consistent all is well 🙂

  • Well, the context for rich people sometimes getting into heaven is right there . . . Jesus says it’s hard for them to get into heaven, then the very next thing he says is that “all things are possible with God.” Could you point me to the context that the biblical passages concerning same-sex activity is speaking to idolatry and temple prostitutes? I’m open to having my mind changed if you can make the case biblically.

  • Nobody tried to sue the manager of the Red Hen in Lexington for refusing to serve Sarah Sanders and her party, for it’s perfectly legal there to discriminate in the basis of political affiliation. Just a couple of hours to the east in DC, however, it isn’t.

  • “I’m open to having my mind changed if you can make the case biblically.”

    Be prepared to wait a VERY long time.

  • Okay, if you feel like that would be consistent, fine. But the only clear-cut case of a situation that goes against the biblical model is a joint return with two same-gendered spouses.

  • LOL. One minute adultery is a sin one minute it is not. Man…I would just ask for consistency on ONE issue from you all…

  • “Consistency” is actually a non-issue here. It’s only more “consistent” apostasy that’s desired, not more consistent holiness and fidelity.

    That’s why I always laugh and move on as soon as a non-believer trots it out.

  • Present what you consider to be compelling evidence and let’s take it apart. I do not accept vague referrals to extraneous websites.

  • Ah okay – sin is fine to point out for gays but not straights. Got it. Figured that was the case. Funny how standing up for others is considered “non-believer” behavior these days. Too funny.

  • Didn’t say there’s anything that’s not “fine” to point out but by now it’s obvious what the goal is.

    It was obvious several years back when Christians in several states were trying to reduce the divorce rate by introducing “covenant marriage.” I do not remember even ONE non-religious voice applauding any “consistency” from us on this issue. All I remember was slander about Christians wanting to “drag women back into the dark ages” and other such foolishness.

    One takes the slander and accusation of non-believers with a grain of salt as Jesus assured us that those who try to follow Him would be as hated as He was. If you guys were telling us how great we were, THEN it would be time to worry.

  • People were probably against christian will being imposed on even non-christians…makes a lot of sense. Most religious people witha brain understand that.

  • completely different cases…try again. Consistency is definitely an important issue when one is asserting religious belief as a defense of discrimination for instance.

  • By the way, it is not just non-believers who criticize efforts to impose religious rules on society in general. Most Christians who are not fundamentalist and who do not crave theocracy see the danger in doing so. We don’t, after all, want a Saudia Arabian style society.

  • They are not completely different — that is your ignorance of “covenant marriage” talking. It was never proposed to be involuntary — people were to be given an option to agree to it at the time of their marriage.

  • Nobody proposed imposing any religious rules on society in general. See my previous reply.

  • Why bring it up? Whatever people want to do within their religion is find with me….you made it sound like it affected others. You’re quite exhausting with your nonsense LOL

  • Fine – I agree – I am not familiar with the covenant marriage. Not sure why you would bring it up then since it has nothing to do with this discussion. That’s what happens when an id*ot inserts him/herself (??) into the conversation.

  • As I stated before, not even ONE non-religious voice suggested any approval of Christian “consistency” about divorce at the time. It was ALL critical, slanderous even.

    The overall point is that non-believers yammering about Christian “consistency” are hypocrites through and through.

  • Not sure how. Atheists are not the only critics are people like the tax return preparer. No has brought up atheists in this discussion even!

  • You are not a hypocrite for criticizing the tax return preparer but for pretending that you care at all about Christian “consistency.”

  • Masterpiece did custom cakes.

    These were not #6 white cakes which you got to pick the figures to top them with from a case and provide the names and date to be placed upon it.

    That “Any business open to the public — that is to say, NOT a
    private/’members only’ club — can NOT discriminate against any
    customer.” is your assertion, but it is not the law.

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act only deals with certain businesses. Medical care, legal representation, and a host of other professional services are not covered.

    It will take another case before the SCOTUS to determine whether the Court sees it your way, but I seriously doubt that it will.

  • I seriously doubt that it will, either. Kennedy deliberately left his seat on the SCOTUS to a justice that he counted on to help safeguard religious liberty while he retired with his patron saint of gayness halo intact.

  • Consistent apostasy, not consistent holiness.

    Every one of you has made that plain every step of the way. You are just today’s featured guest.

    BTW, where is that biblical case for same sex marriage that you promised?

  • https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/indiana_tax_preparer_shows_limits_and_liberties_of_our_post_masterpiece_cakeshop_world/#comment-4365757505

    Notice I did NOT say that Phillips’ position was vindicated by the Supreme Court.

    However, the SCOTUS did not “simply remand… the case back to the state courts, saying they had been unduly critical due to Mr. Phillip’s religion”. Here is the opinion in slip form:

    https://casetext.com/case/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colo-civil-rights-commn-2

    “But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same.“

    In short, it was a kangaroo adjudication, and was so besmirched there was nothing for the state courts to consider.

  • Not only does the writer of the page you linked to do the same thing that you did — claim that some of the biblical passages are actually talking about temple rituals, etc., without actually giving any biblical support for such an idea — it is also internally inconsistent.

    For example, in one paragraph, it says: “Romans 1 condemns Christian apostates who apparently had a heterosexual orientation and who engaged in what was for them unnatural sex: engaging in sex with members of the same sex.”

    In the VERY NEXT paragraph when talking about a passage in 1 Corinthians, it says: “Paul was writing before the existence of a homosexual orientation was known.” Which one was it? Is Paul saying that heterosexual acts are “unnatural” for homosexuals, or is he unaware of orientation? It can’t be both.

  • I never promised anything showing a biblical case for marriage. I provided information on how the anti-gay bible verses are not really a definitive as you all think.

    I am not sure what “every one of you” means but whatever. Fundamentalists don’t play well with others…

  • You’re being far more generous than I am. I don’t allow posters like Etranger to cite a website and then run away. I expect them to actually present and defend what they supposedly find so “clear and convincing.”

    It usually empties the room in short order.

  • I completely agree.

    It seemed to me that he was genuinely shocked that the case arose in the first place, which is not surprising since justices quickly become isolated from reality living in the rarefied atmosphere of Washington, DC, and being treated like quasi-royalty.

  • You said “clear evidence.” So, show us what’s so clear about this evidence. Anybody can throw out some third-rate website. I expect you to know and understand exactly what you’re advocating here and be prepared to have it examined and debunked openly.

    “Every one of you” includes every non-believer I’ve ever seen post on these threads. Also every Christianity-hater who opposed “covenant marriage” that affected them not at all.

  • Third-rate website? It is actually quite good and based on scholarship. Oh well.

    Ah, didn’t realize I ever said I was a non-believer. Again, calling out homophobes = nonbeliever? Craziness!

  • So, you’re not going to present your case? Well, I didn’t think so.

    Whatever you believe in, it isn’t biblical Christianity. No follower of Christ would ever demand that a brother or sister participate in ANYTHING that would violate his/her conscience, because we remember Christ’s warning about what can happen to those who cause one of His little ones to sin.

    I for one would get out my trusty piping bag and decorate my own wedding cake before I’d insist on anyone who had a problem with my marriage being in on the event.

  • Oh I definitely would never demand that anyone participate in something against their conscience! Ever.

  • Complete juvenalia.

    “Unless you agree with me and do what I want, you hate me!”

    You’re not going to win anyone over with that sort of nonsense.

  • Most Christians oppose same sex congress, and have for nearly 2,000 years.

    The sects you mentioned are sinking like rocks and have been for years.

  • “right wing Christians have repeatedly informed me that marriage is a fundamental building block of society, without which, society will crumble”.

    That’s actually the position of the pagan Romans from republic through empire.

    You won’t like what they based that on.

    “I merely have the same rights that you do.”

    And you did before Obergefell v. Hodges. You could marry any woman of your choosing who was not married, not your sister or your mother, and not under the age of consent.

    “As I already pointed out, it isn’t marriage that is being redefined”.

    Of course it was, or you could have married as you wished before Obergefell v. Hodges.

    “maybe you can explain how my marriage affects.”

    Society?

    That’s the issue, not whether it “prevents you or any other heterosexual from getting married, or affects your beliefs about marriage, or affects your church, or has any affect on your life except to offend you that the figs are now legally equal to you.”

    And that is what you don’t want to talk about, that we’re talking about a society, not a gang of Libertarians and Libertines running over the hill in pantyhose holding hands.

    What we’re talking about is the fundamental right of people to build the society in which they want to live.

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

    And that’s the right you want to throw in the mud and jump up and down on.

  • Your begging of the question belies your contempt.

    Why do you think hating sin requires hating LGBT people?

    Because you’re immature.

    “Golly, Mom, if you REALLY love me you’d let me …. blah, blah, blah.”

  • Stop with the asshattery. Don’t drop that inane “Hate the sin, not the sinner” gaslighting. We are not sin, or sinful, merely for existing and loving who we do. Don’t you have some murderers or something to chase after, or is persecuting LGBTQ “your jam”, lol?

    Btw-why is it that 98% of all pedophiles are Roman Catholic and Evangelical/Southern Baptist?
    Can you share any tips on how to protect our kids from child-raping prelates and pastors?

  • Good thing religious liberty is not at stake here. Just an attempt to carve out a special privilege for bigoted Christians to ignore laws and harm people for their own amusement. .

  • Actually its the same act. Trying to deny goods and services in open commerce based on personal animus against the class of the customers.

    The only difference is this kind of segregation is legal in IN for the moment and it wasn’t in CO.

    The excuses here are a load of garbage. It had to do with the class of customers and trying to treating them as social inferiors.

  • It makes no difference what excuse he makes for the act of discrimination here. He refused to sell goods and services normally done in open commerce because he did not want to treat gays like any other customers. With the most basic level of civility demanded by businesses open to the general public.

    If his beliefs were so overwhelming that he could not do that, tough luck. He should have chosen a form of doing business which would not subject him with the horrors of associating with people he sought religious excuses to hate.

    Nobody has to give a crap what his beliefs were because one’s beliefs are not a pretext to harm others. Discrimination in open commerce is a recognized harm.

  • If the sinfulness of customers is a problem for a vendor of goods and services in open commerce, then don’t do business in open commerce. Doing business with the general public entails an obligation to do business with all customers regardless of what class of individual they are or personal feelings concerning such classes.

    Being a raging bigot is no excuse here despite what the Bible thumper crowd seems to think.

  • If you have a business open to the public, you can leave your vile bigotry at the door. You don’t get to deny business to them on the basis of your personal prejudice.

    Decent people do not hold your position. Decent people know how to act in public settings with the bare minimum of civility required by society.

  • Nothing infantile about correcting your obvious error. There is nothing related to religious freedom being bandied about by the anti-gay crowd here. It is all about seeking special legal privilege to attack others.

  • Nope. Just calling out a lame excuse for what is clearly segregation of gays in open commerce.

    “But my form of bigotry is different” is not a decent excuse.

  • As far as we know anti-discrimination laws do not cover entitled white people who get positions through nepotism.

  • You want excuses to treat gays as social inferiors and to deny them goods and services in open commerce. You are a spineless segregationist.

  • You’re going to be mightily disappointed in the 1st Amendment jurisprudence of the near future, Tater. If a vote by the UMC which affects you not at all can induce this kind of hysteria in you, I can’t wait to see what kind of seizures the SCOTUS will elicit.

  • You couldn’t correct a sunny forecast soaked to the skin in pink rainboots, Tater Tot.

  • There is no 1st Amendment issue here. Religious freedom has never been a valid pretext to harm others.

    “Blackout Brett” seems likely to punt on the issue. He clerked under Kennedy. The person who pretty much created gay rights jurisprudence.

    I find it funny that your post is nothing but “You’ll see, you’ll be sorry mwahahaahaha”

  • Hardly. You are trying to deflect and split hairs in a knowingly ridiculous fashion. Whatever.

  • Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance and inability to comprehend how the law applies to businesses. Read SCOTUS’ ruling — though I KNOW you won’t– and you’ll find it says EXACTLY what I said. You also needed to study business law a great deal more.

  • Has he ever made a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple that had sex before marriage? Unless he’s having EVERY wedding cake customer full out a detailed questionnaire as to their behavior, he most assuredly WAS putting one “sin” above another — something the bible doesn’t allow for since it claims all sins are equal. Philip’s discriminated. Period. He should be held accountable under the law.

  • Phillips ‘ “beliefs” are irrelevant. The business is an artificial person under the law and, as such, has no religious beliefs of its own. Besides, “religious beliefs” have no bearing on the conduct of business — unless you’re discussing churches, which actually ARE businesses, and should be taxed as such.

  • If he “created” gay rights jurisprudence, then you have just conceded in your ignorance that gay rights jurisprudence is illegitimate on its face. Judges in their proper capacity do not create anything. The people create law.

    Kennedy may have been willing to “create” a right out of his backside so his friends wouldn’t be “lonely” (🤣) but he never met a 1st Amendment claim he didn’t like. And there is a reason why he ducked out at this particular time — but not without first going to bat for Kavanaugh.

    I find it funny that you talk about who is or isn’t likely to “punt” when you can’t even read a SCOTUS opinion intelligently.

  • “Facts” are not part of your dozen-word vocabulary, Tate. Your postings consist of nothing but your personal feelings and opinions.

  • “The business is an artificial person under the law and, as such, has no religious beliefs of its own.” The SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby case rejected that claim outright. The only question is how closely-held the business must be in order to exercise a right to religious freedom.

  • Ever since Paul counseled the Corinthian Christians about meat offered to idols, Christians have assumed the best of everyone wherever possible. There is no way, however, to assume the best about a same-sex marriage. It can not be right under any circumstances.

  • Thank you for demonstrating all of my points exactly — you’re special, your “faith” is special. (But is it a “real” faith)? I’m just a fig who shouldn’t presume to think that I am as Good As You? Get it? G-A-Y!!!!!

    Let’s take apart what you said. What fun!

    “Ben, with the court affirming gay marriage, that now has made [real] marriage less special.” I’ve been married for 11 years legally. Are you telling me that for 11 years, your marriage was less special and less valuable? Does your wife know that you feel that way? With my ability to marry and protect my family, love, children and assets somehow makes your marriage less special, then your marriage with nothing special to begin with. Which it was not. It was a marriage, same as anyone else’s. My marriage is a real marriage. It’s a matter of complete indifference to me that you don’t like it.

    “I’m sorry” no, you’re not sorry.

    “but a gay marriage will never equal a marriage” That’s your opinion, and it isn’t true, not legally, and increasingly, not religiously, socially, morally, or culturally either. I’m not interested in equaling your marriage, nor in your opinion that it isn’t equal to yours. The phrase is absolutely meaning less, except as a means for you to say “I’m better than you.” No, you’re not.

    “I’m not saying you cannot love your same sex partner”. That is so damned white of you. So big! so condescending! You’ll give me permission to love someone, but I had better not think I am as Good As You. I’ve have known a number of couples that have been together longer than all three of trumps marriages, all four of Rush Limbaugh’s marriages, all three of Newties fornicating and adulterous marriages, all eight of Mickey Rooney’s marriages or all nine of Liz Taylor’s marriages.

    “You can love someone and not be married and nobody can stop you from doing that.” Again, so generous of you to grant me that little bit of humanity. I’m impressed!

    “But you misunderstand what marriage is, as ordained by God.” No, I understand exactly what it is: a lifetime commitment to another person, made in front of family, friends, and community, Solemnized in our case to bya minister, and authorized and regulated by the state as a legal contract which entails a number of obligations, rights, responsibilities, and benefits. It establishes next of kinship, as well providing legal protections to our children. I think it is you that doesn’t understand what marriage is. In your opinion, it is ordained by God, or more accurately, ordained by your particular and peculiar version of God in your particular and peculiar version of your religion. There Are plenty about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, ministers, priests, and rabbis, And entire denominations that believe that my marriage is every bit as sacred and as ordained by God as yours.

    “Marriage is between a man and woman.” Again, in your opinion, but not according to the laws of a good portion of the west, as affirmed their governments, courts, people, and legislatures. But in any case, in some countries it’s between a man and as many women as he can support, between a man and a woman, followed by a divorce and marriage to another woman, followed by a divorce and marriage to another woman, as often and badly as they wish. And perhaps his mistresses and his boyfriend as well. Or hers.

    “It doesn’t mean, as a human, you’re inferior to anyone else”. No but you’re trying to make me inferior to anyone else, especially you.

    “It just means that marriage is what it is.” According to your beliefs and your religion.

    “Just like the sky is blue or the grass is green and the high court has no right to decide that.” They did, and it’s the law of the land. You might be able to change that, but until you do, it’s the law of the land. You just don’t like it, because it makes a f*g like me your equal and that is what you really object to.

    But I do want to thank you for demonstrating what this is really about and in no uncertain terms. Not all bigotry is hate. So much of it is what you haveclearly stated: the unwavering belief in your completely imaginary superiority. That you, as a heterosexual, a human being, an allegedly moral person, and completely a member of a certain class of so called Christian…

    that somehow, you are more superior, more deserving, more special, then the objects of your disaffections.

  • There you go, pretending the Supreme Court has far less power than reality has suggested for over 200+ years. A nonsense argument bandied about by conservatives as a way to avoid recognition of civil liberties.

    The usual collateral arguments made because there is no good faith meritorious legal argument to be made. There is no exercise of religious freedom which entails a privilege to attack others in the name of their faith. It must be tough to keep all your canned excuses and screeds straight.

    But then again trying to polish the turd of segregationism for the modern era takes some real creatively spurious arguments.

  • “The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78.

    You will only be a believer in judicial activism until they “activate” something you don’t like. That is because you hate the Constitution like all progs do.

  • That’s nice. Keep pretending 200+ years of judicial power simply does not exist because you don’t want it to. Because it gets in the way of the undue privilege you want to exert over others.

    I stopped pretending rational, fact based logical arguments are something you respond to a while ago. You are going to say what you want to say regardless. Whatever.

  • I’ll look into that ruling. However, they did redefine it and all the states recognize it. The conservative Right has their work cut out reversing it.

  • First “public accommodation”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

    “Under US federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law as well as religious organizations. Title II’s definition of public accommodation is limited to “any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests” and so is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws, but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.”

    “Various US states have nonuniform laws that provide for nondiscrimination in public accommodations.”

    No professional services – attorneys, artists (including performance artists), speech writers, authors, most healthcare providers, and a host of others are not covered.

    Next, the Civil Rights Act, again at the Dick and Jane level:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

    “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and U.S. labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, and racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.”

    No LGBT issues.

    I will happy to read any SCOTUS decision you believe is relevant, but the above summarizes the law, and your impression of it is erroneous.

  • You’re a mess, e.g.:

    “Btw-why is it that 98% of all pedophiles are Roman Catholic and Evangelical/Southern Baptist?”

    It’s folks like yourself that do the most damage to your position.

  • I can’t believe that anyone would actually be crazy enough to ingest a piece of food that some schlubb in the food industry was forced to bake against their will.

  • The first amendment means that she gets to define her religion to us, not the other way around. Thus she has every right to be a “cafeteria” Christian who believes that gay marriage is wrong while divorce is not. Atheist and Fundamentalist are far from the only two options available. All flavors in between are also options.

  • FORTUNATELY, your bible has NOTHING to do with the US Constitution OR laws. Even if it DID, if Mr. Phillips isn’t refusing to bake wedding cakes for ALL who “sin”, he’s selectively applying his faith AND discriminating.
    In America, we have LAWS that EVERYONE must obey. “Sin” is a religious concept, not a legal one, and not everyone adheres to the same faith.

  • Seems like Christians can figure out how to function in society. News flash, outside of your church there are people different from you who actually still deserve services and goods and rights. That reality actually doesn’t detract from religious belief…nothing to do with first amendment either…

  • That’s not my vision, it is in the Bill of Rights. Quite literally the first one.
    Your vision of society conversely is downright cartoonish, where the only two options are Atheism and staunch Fundamentalism.

  • No the constitution does not say we cannot have laws. The law cannot deny your religious freedom (ie religious beliefs). No one is telling this tax accountant she can’t believe what she believes.

  • My vision is one of laws and many people getting along in society. Not sure where the heck you think it is between atheism and fundamentalism. Cookoo

  • No, the first amendment is not a mere acknowledgement by the govt that they lack the ability to control your thoughts.

  • Where in the Constitution is the section based on the christian bible? I never studied that in law.

  • “Mr. Phillips isn’t refusing to bake wedding cakes for ALL who “sin””

    UNFORTUNATELY, you understand the dispute even LESS than most.

    Mr Phillips never CLAIMED to refuse to bake for ALL who sin. He declined to PARTICIPATE in a sinful EVENT, namely a SAME SEX WEDDING.

    “…and not everyone adheres to the same faith” Which is why YOUR personal assessment of how Mr. Phillips is or is not following HIS faith is IRRELEVANT to everyone but YOU.

    NOW, didn’t all those caps GREATLY enhance my argument? 😏

    Well, it did about as much for YOURS.

    Didn’t anyone ever teach you how to WRITE?

  • Of course they’re not thinking any farther ahead than their own craving to rub someone else’s nose in it.

  • I could follow it fine. It was a train of “thought” post from a person who punctuates as though they are functionally illiterate.

  • Seems like “getting along” is a one way street in your world. Although I am starting to see that I am conversing with someone who isn’t exactly the brightest bulb in the box.

    Cookoo? Are you six?

  • No getting along means co existing. I may not like people who lie – it is against my religious belief- but I will still sell them goods and provide them services. I have prepared countless tax returns for Christians, for instance. By doing so I am not abandoning my religious belief.

  • Are you actually dumb enough to ingest a piece of cake that some schlubb in the food industry was forced to bake against their will?

    I sure hope so.

  • There’s that Christian ‘love’. It never takes long for you guys to show your true evil colors. Nothing but nasty pieces of sh$t!

    Of course, your response shows you kind of don’t get the concept of society and having different people coexisting. Should you be denied food and clothes because I don’t happen to like you?

  • I would still prepare your tax return, since I am open for business and don’t discriminate, even though you are immoral according to my religion.

  • Since you are playing the “society” card I will play along. It would be rude to ask a black baker to bake a confederate themed wedding cake for a Klan wedding. It would be rude to ask a Muslim baker to bake a wedding cake that depicts Mohammad as a cartoon pig. It would be rude to ask a Jewish baker to bake a wedding cake that is completely covered in swastikas. It would be rude to ask a White liberal baker to bake a gun-themed wedding cake. It would be rude to ask a feminist baker to bake a polygamous wedding cake. And it is rude to ask a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake.

  • Decorating cakes — even custom wedding cakes — is the BUSINESS Mr. Phillips is engaged in. It is NOT “participating” in ANYTHING other than the business for which he received his business and health licenses. He would be in NO way, shape or form “participating” in ANY “event”. That’s where you religidiots get it COMPLETELY wrong.

    We ALL follow the same laws– at least we’re all supposed to –but we DON’T all follow the same religion. That the point, sweetheart. The LAW applies to everyone. Any person’s religious ideologies do NOT!

    It’s called “adding EMPHASIS”, which YOU would have known if anyone had taught YOU how to write. But you did a good job for your first attempt. Keep trying.

  • Your examples are all unrelated so it is impossible to reply affirmatively to all at once. Not all Christians are against gays marrying (actually most are not against it). Your swastika example is different because it is a specific cake design. Anyone can refuse a cake design. Why would a feminist be against a polygamist wedding per se?! The gun themed cake is a specific design. Why would a liberal be against it per second? For instance I am a liberal but own guns lol. I would find the cake pretty ludicrous but would bake it. Etc etc.
    There is nothing rude about asking a baker to bake a wedding cake, if they bake those regularly. The examples you invented are much different.

  • Wasn’t the Hobby Lobby case about what medical insurance they should provide to their employees? That’s a completely different issue than discriminating against paying customers.

  • A small sampling from the internet of how wedding cake artists view their craft:

    “Wedding cakes are the highlight of your special day and they should reflect your own style and vision. Let our artists bring that vision to life”

    “Let us be a small part of your big day!”

    “We look beyond just the cake and focus on creating a work of art that tells the story of two individuals in love.”

    “We encourage each couple to bring inspiration found in what moves them, what they treasure, what exemplifies their love. This is the beginning of a beautiful creation … because it’s not just about cake!”

    Sounds to me like most artists know quite well that they’re participating and take pride in it.

    “It’s called “adding EMPHASIS” No, dear, it’s called shouting, and it’s called ignorant and rude. Emphasis involves intelligent and selective use of words.

    This is about the kind of “emphasis” you’re communicating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFrZsGbO6N0

  • It doesn’t matter — the SCOTUS explicitly rejected the notion that a for-profit business can not have protected religious beliefs.

  • So you are arguing that a gay person should be able to buy a wedding cake that has been specifically designed for a straight wedding? In that case I agree.

    Once you request that it be rainbow frosted with two dudes on top, then the Christian baker should have every right to turn it down.

    Remember, this was your idea. So spare me your inane retort.

  • The same concept underlaid the Roman Republic’s view of family, and they were pagans.

    It must be bigger than the “christian bible”.

  • Laws may change (legally or otherwise) but the Word of God does not. And most churches still agree.

  • Of course the baker can refuse the rainbow design. I know you have fantastical ideas of what gay folks are like but must of us have wedding cakes that look like yours!
    Remember, in masterpiece the couple did not even discuss cake design; they never had a chance.

    I am glad we finally agree. The issue should always be about artistic expression. No baker should have to create something they don’t like.

  • I can take it….you apparently cannot. Remember, you are the one hurling insults left and right.

  • You don’t get to decide what decent means. It is the opposite of you. The Constitution guarantees Americans their God-given rights, which cannot be abrogated by any lefty tribunal. So please stuff your self-righteous tyranny in your special place. Your perverted ideas are the definition of vile.

  • I do not. And because YOU define reality as “outrageous” doesn’t make it so. Take your misplaced indignation and apply it where it may do some good – like saving a child’s life as the racist Planned Parenthood is killing her after she is born in their abattoir.

  • You wouldn’t recognize an intelligent person if he kissed you on the cheek.
    Nor do you even have any idea what religion is. You are simply pitiable.

    “Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
    1 Romans 1:21

  • I see you have absolutely no grounding in facts and the real world. Not a surprise- you’re a right-wing, propaganda-drinking, fundamentalist religious nut.

  • Point taken. . . I can see how dissecting the links put up by lazy posters could get real time-consuming.

  • Of course adultery is sin. But divorce is not necessarily so, since it is permitted in certain circumstances. Divorce can be ascertained from a tax return. Adultery cannot.

  • “Divorce can be ascertained from a tax return. Adultery cannot.”

    Well…let’s break that down. Yes, divorce can be ascertained from a tax return. But the default position of a good Christian with sincerely held religious beliefs is that divorce is wrong. So she should not do the tax return. The exception to the general rule is that divorce is okay in cases of adultery. So if she decides it is okay to do a divorced person’s return (because it is an “okay” divorce in her system of sincerely held religious beliefs), she accepts that adultery occurred. That means that she is doing the tax return of a probable adulterer. If she did the returns for both divorced parties from the couple, she has a 100% chance of participating in adultery. (Participation is the new thing for the discriminatory religious folks…somehow making a cake, providing flowers, doing tax returns or renting out a reception hall is participation in a marriage event… I never knew when I was a waiter at Marriott working banquets that I was participating in so many weddings and bar mitzvahs and family unions!!)

  • You are not a decent person. You are a vile and spineless bigot.

    Someone so deranged by their petty prejudice that they cannot even bother to act in the barest level of civility our society demands of dealing with others.

    Someone so lacking in courage of their beliefs that they seek to avoid all personal responsibility for what they do to others. So you seek legal excuses and pretend religious belief absolves you of criticism here.

    The Constitution does not allow you to harm others in the name of your faith. You do not seek religious freedom. You seek special privilege as a Christian over others. You hate freedom, rule of law and basic human decency.

  • Jack Phillips did not deny service “based on personal animus against the class of the customers.” He denied service only because the requested service entailed making a cake celebrating same sex marriage.
    The tax preparer on the other hand was not being asked to make anything celebrating same sex marriage. She was only being asked to make a legal document – not a celebratory document.

  • Gay was not a factor in his decision. He won’t make a cake for anyone – gay or straight – if the cake celebrates same sex marriage, or expresses a message he objects to.

  • Well! A perfect non-response that certainly lets you off the hook, doesn’t it. That’s why the Methodists have female ministers.

    It’s not true and true simultaneously, of course. God’s law doesn’t change, WE DO. Slavery was god’s law until it wasn’t. We no longer kill the unbelievers in the town.

  • Yes he did. He refused to treat a gay couple as he would any other customer, because they were gay. The tax preparer refused to treat the gay couple like any other customer because they were gay.

    Your nonsense about “celebration” here is immaterial. It is merely a lame excuse for conduct which is nothing more than “I don’t serve gays”. More importantly the entire purpose of such actions are to declare the customer a social inferior, less than the person the vendor is. The intent is entirely discriminatory and based on bigoted disregard for others.

    They refused to provide the “wares” of their business which were advertised as available to the general public because of the class of customer asking for them. That is as textbook a definition of discrimination as one gets.

    If the vendor was so deranged by their prejudice and religious belief that they could not even bother to act with the bare minimum level of civility required by society and law, then they should not do business to the general public. There are ways to conduct business where one can be so selective and exclusive.

    All your bullcrap about “sins” of the customers and religious compulsion are merely looking for excuses for actions which are objectively and legally indistinguishable from those by people when Jim Crow was in effect.

  • You are lying here. There was nothing to indicate they ever treated straight couples in such a fashion. The fact the customers were gay were the ONLY factors in the decision.

    They wanted to make a distinction as to which customers may receive the goods and services advertised as available to the general public. To treat the gay couples as social inferiors in a malicious fashion.

    The entire purpose of these actions are to segregate gays from open commerce. Jim Crow 2.0 in its most obvious sense.

  • I’m pretty sure that he would not make a cake that celebrated “sex before marriage”. But if a couple were transitioning from a “sinful” relationship (sex before marriage) to a “righteous” relationship (marriage), I see no reason why he would not make a cake celebrating the marriage.

  • From the words of Christopher Yuan…

    As a non-believer I went searching thru the Bible to justify my homosexuality. I read thru the entire bible [he had plenty of time on his hands while in prison] and I could not find it.

    He turned away from his sin and and repented. Does he still have thoughts and attractions that he has to deal with? I’m sure he does just like any other human dealing with their sin nature.

    FYI, slavery was never God’s law. Slavery is a creation of man.

  • Intent is a critical factor. It is illegal in Colorado to deny service to a gay person if the denial is based on the fact that he is gay. But it is not illegal if the denial of service is based on some other factor.

  • I have one for you:
    Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.
    Acts 3:19
    Or, let God’s vengeance be shown against the ungodly. Jesus loves, but He also commands “Go, and SIN NO MORE.” Wake up! Life is short and you will rue your persecution of decency in the end.

  • Lol, your hatred and violence is oozing out all over. Do you think I feel insulted by such obvious self-serving vitriol? Or do you think anyone reading cannot see what you are? Grow up. Americans have God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution. If you don’t like that, go to China where the government tells everyone how they must live. If you perverts truly loved humanity, you wouldn’t need to try to force others to associate with you.

  • And justified by men quoting the Bible. Try reading a history book. Hell, read Uncle Tom,s cabin.

  • and I’m sorry the book DOES fit yours.

    The southern baptists and Methodists both split because of slavery. Your claim that god and the Bible was not a part of the discussion is ludicrous.

  • For a person whose very handle identifies them as a terrible, “deplorable” person, you seem awfully gunshy about actually following through on it. One would expect you to revel in such responses and not care so much about the opinions of others. You are truly spineless.

    I am not the one advocating harming others. You are apparently afraid of people calling out your petty malicious actions.

    “If you perverts truly loved humanity, you wouldn’t need to try to force others to associate with you.”

    Its funny. One one hand, Bible thumping bigots are responding to me are claiming their goal is not segregation and discrimination. Then you finally work up the nerve to prove my point and kill their arguments. Your arguments.

    Thank you for that little bit of honesty there.

  • Whatever differences they had was not biblically based. Your notion that God somehow condones slavery is ridiculous.

  • Not my notion. Historical fact. It is simply irrelevant that YOU cannot find a justification for slavery. They assuredly did.

    It’s just inconvenient for you.

  • “Sin” or what any one person perceives as “sin” is irrelevant. The couple wanted to BUY a wedding cake, which is what Mr. Phillips is in the BUSINESS of making and SELLING.
    If the “good Christians” actually read their bibles, they’d discover that they’re sinning as well by judging other people by their “sins”. And people wonder why I left those charlatans in the muck in which they insist upon wallowing.

  • And the denial of those services most assuredly WAS because the couple was gay.

    Of course, the UP side is, now they’ve opened the door for anti-theists to legally deny their services to the hateful “Christian” they’d otherwise have to put up with– and they won’t be able to legally say a thing about it.

  • Oh no! The horror of being a bigot and having a store open to the general public. Being forced to treat all customers with the most slightest bit of civility expected from them!

  • Sorry, they don’t qualify. They would work to verify that you’re a delusional lefty, tho!

  • Your verbal assault would be comical if it weren’t such a complete inversion of reality! Your mental instability is on display, and you don’t even realize it. Get help!

  • You mean like the verbal assault, you began the discussion with? You are truly a spineless hypocrite.

    Criticizing an uncivil and hateful person is not verbal assault. It is just being honest. I am not the one advocating treating entire classes of people as less than human as you do. So have fun trying to portray me as being hateful.

    You apparently have no problem dishing out hateful nonsense to others, but don’t want to be called out on it. Afraid of being criticized for your actions. Oh well.

    I love how you completely murdered the arguments of your fellow Bible thumping bigots. All by saying in public what was meant to be private among you guys. That you want nothing more than segregation.

  • Divorce does. Does she prepare tax returns for people paying or receiving alimony or child support?

  • Those are all pretty much examples of hate speech, and could rightfully be rejected using the neutral standard “no hate speech.”

    There is nothing wrong with a black baker making a cake for the marriage of two white people. Likewise, a vegan baker would make a dessert for a barbeque (using his vegan recipes if his product is “vegan cakes”) or a jewish baker would make a cake for a muslim wedding.

    Its mostly christians who think the planet should humor their bigotry.

  • Gay marriage is not prohibited by the bible. Just male gay sex.

    Just as the tax preparer does not know the reason for divorce, the tax preparer likewise has no way of knowing whether any couple is having sex, gay or straight.

  • But a gay couple is not filing a joint return because they are having sex. They are filing a joint return because the civil, secular government says they are married.

    There is not one word in the bible that prohibits a gay marriage. If anything, the bible prohibits gay sex. The tax preparer simply has no way of knowing whether any married couple is having sex. That isn’t the sort of thing one discusses with one’s accountant.

  • I can see what you mean. Truth be told, I don’t think the tax accountant has a strong case here, since she is basically just acting as an extension of the government by helping people file taxes. I think artists (photographers, bakers, musicians) have more of a leg to stand on when it comes to these religious freedom situations.

  • Already went over that with someone else. Divorce is permitted in some cases in the Bible. Homosexual activity (generally assumed to be occurring in virtually every same-sex marriage) is never permitted.

  • You’re being disingenuous — sex is assumed to be the norm for marriage.
    The Bible speaks highly of marriage in the Bible — from the first part of Genesis through to the New Testament letters, marriage is held to be a heterosexual institution. Even if you want to try to make the case that just because people are married doesn’t mean they’re “being intimate,” there is still a very strong case to be made the Bible only endorses heterosexual marriage.

  • You are arguing that the tax preparer has no way of knowing if a couple divorced for infidelity. Either way, one spouse has sinned either for adultery or for unauthorized divorce.

    Yet the same preparer us expected to assume the sex lives of gay couples.

    Hypocrite.

  • But if a couple is divorced, one must be an adulterer or the other divorced without biblically approved cause.

  • Yep, could be. But you’d have no way of knowing who’s who. Besides, the circumstances surrounding “acceptable” divorce are far less clear in the Bible than prohibitions of same-sex activity. This fact is reflected in church doctrinal views, which have long made allowances for divorce in some cases, but have never, until well after the sexual revolution, allowed same-sex marriage.

  • If I thought you had any real interest at all in me actually following what the Bible teaches, I might be bothered by your “hypocrite” name-calling. But I know you don’t, so I’m not.

  • Are you just making this stuff up?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

    “On June 30, 2014, Associate Justice Samuel Alito delivered the judgment of the court. Four justices (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) joined him to strike down the HHS mandate, as applied to closely held corporations with religious objections, and to prevent the plaintiffs from being compelled to provide contraception under their healthcare plans. The ruling was reached on statutory grounds, citing the RFRA, because the mandate was not the “least restrictive” method of implementing the government’s interest. The ruling did not address Hobby Lobby’s claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”

    You should at least avail yourself of de minimus resources before engaging in blather.

  • As it turns out HE, not you, not the State of Colorado, gets to determine his own religious beliefs.

    You also appear to be totally unaware of the nature of his defense.

  • “‘but a gay marriage will never equal a marriage’ That’s your opinion, and it isn’t true, not legally, and increasingly, not religiously, socially, morally, or culturally either.”

    He is stating that from his perspective, and in agreement with Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christians you are not in a marriage.

    And that is whether you like it or do not. He has that right.

    “’It doesn’t mean, as a human, you’re inferior to anyone else’. No but you’re trying to make me inferior to anyone else, especially you.”

    No, you’re making yourself appear inferior to him because your angry bitterness, your hatred of his beliefs, and your pugnacious attitude are inconsistent with an adult who can carry on a conversation with another adult.

    “’It just means that marriage is what it is.’ According to your beliefs and your religion.”

    Well, Big Duh!

    “that somehow, you are more superior, more deserving, more special, then the objects of your disaffections.”

    But he said none of that. All of it, from A to B, comes from you and your apparent sense of inadequacy which does not, and apparently cannot, tolerate disagreement.

    You should work on getting used to it.

  • More accurately he selectively chooses his faith, which is his constitutional right.

    Since he rested his defense on free speech grounds, not on what he considers sin, you are tilting at a windmill.

  • “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was a work of fiction by Harriet Beecher Stowe, who did not set a foot in the South or have the slightest personal experience with slavery before writing it.

    It was, in fact, a piece of propaganda which portrayed as common behavior acts that made no economic sense for slaveowners and were quite uncommon.

    I think we’ve already determined in previous discussions you don’t the Bible from a hole in the ground.

  • “Gay marriage is not prohibited by the bible.”

    Of course it is.

    “Just as the tax preparer does not know the reason for divorce, the tax preparer likewise has no way of knowing whether any couple is having sex, gay or straight.”

    In this case the preparer knew this couple was in a same sex marriage.

  • I’ll help you get your facts straight.

    Methodists:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Episcopal_Church,_South#History

    “The 1844 General Conference voted to suspend Bishop Andrew from exercising his episcopal office until he gave up the slaves. Southern delegates to the conference disputed the authority of a General Conference to discipline bishops. The cultural differences that had divided the nation during the mid-19th century were also dividing the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 1844 dispute led Methodists in the South to break off and form a separate denomination, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MEC,S).”

    The Baptist situation is much more complex, but Baptist ministers preached against abuse of slaves citing Paul’s advice to both slaveowners and slaves. As with the Methodists, the cultural differences between the northern and southern congregations created constant conflict between the two geographical sections.

  • Mr. Phillips of the Masterpiece Cake Shop not only employed LGBT people, he served the couple whose demand for a cake led to the case in Colorado.

    So, scratch “the denial of those services most assuredly WAS because the couple was gay”.

  • Sin is VERY relevant to the individual who holds and exercises a religious belief.

    “The couple wanted to BUY a wedding cake, which is what Mr. Phillips is in the BUSINESS of making and SELLING.”

    Actually, no. Mr. Phillips was a custom designer of cakes. He did not pull a #6 cake off a shelf of twelve and stick a couple of figurines on it.

    He was known in his community for not baking Halloween cakes and host of others which violated his religious beliefs.

    The couple whose cake he refused to design knew this when they went into the Phillips’ shop.

  • Why, are you divorced and want a tax return prepared in Indiana?

    This “divorce” spiel is one of the oldest LGBT supposedly anti-Christian supposedly gotchas in the LGBT one-liner book.

    The prohibition against divorce has certain exceptions, one given by Jesus contemporaneously in his discourse in Matthew.

    Not all Christian denominations interpret it the same way.

    Since the believer, not you, not the state, determines the believer’s standard of belief, it’s really quite meaningless.

  • Remember those matchbook covers “Become a Writer! Make Big Money! LEARN TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS!”?

  • I simply pointed out the blatant hipocricy all you religious folks engage in. IF he were TRULY “living his faith” he would treat ALL sins equally as his alleged “God” does. Mr. Phillips, like most “Christians”, is very selective about which “sins” he recognizes and chooses to enforce.

  • Only if he agreed with you that what he considers sin is what you consider sin.

    The First Amendment gives him every right to agree or disagree with you or any other Christian.

    The hypocrisy arises when you, a non-believer, excoriates him for not seeing it your way, and then having the chutzpah to accuse him of bigotry.

  • Wrong. MOST accurately, he chose which PART of his faith he wants to abide by, ignoring all the rest.
    Obviously, there are nuances to this case and the law you choose to ignore. Rest assured, this will work it’s way back to SCOTUS, as was intended.

  • YOU know HIS faith?

    In one word – NO!

    I know this case inside, out, backwards, and forwards.

    The case did not rest on his faith, or sin, or anything at all like that.

    Here is the entire case, include all the pleadings, the record, briefs of both parties, amicus curae, the opinion – the whole deal.

    I’ d read it were I you.

  • Such as it is.

    Did you see? Tater learned a new vocabulary word — she’s calling everyone “spineless” now.

    I’m not sure we’re up to the necessary 25 words/phrases for a bingo card, though. We need to count…

  • And that’s the way it should be. Mature adults are generally able to navigate these situations between each other with little need for government to step in and tell them whom they must play with and how.

  • The enrolled agent is more than a preparer of a legal document.

    The preparer is the individual who represents the taxpayer before the IRS and Tax Court.

  • Had the couple walked in and asked for a plain multi-tiered wedding cake, Phillips would refer them elsewhere in any case since that is not what his business consisted of.

    He did give them referrals to other bakers, one of whom provided the cake they wanted, just as this preparer gave the taxpayers referral to other preparers.

  • “Sin” is completely IRRELEVANT under U.S. law, which is what ALL are required to abide by. Each of us is free to “believe” whatever we choose, but no one set of beliefs will ever be codified into law.

  • The weird thing is they never even got to ask him for any cake design! He ended the discussion before they got to that.

  • I am well aware that the left intentionally set up anti-discrimination laws in a manner that would allow them to continue to refuse service to folks that they find morally reprehensible.

  • Actually I have only done that in response to you doing the same. I don’t mind discussing things in a civil manner, but if I lock horns with someone of your ilk I will often respond in kind. You get what you give.

  • I agree that a gay person should be able to buy a normal wedding cake and then swap out the figurines once they get home. That seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise. The trouble with the left is that they don’t like to compromise, so we wind up in this “all or nothing” paradigm.

  • I like civil discussions as well and, like you, respond in kind when someone takes it to another level. I don’t sit there and complain that I got insulted if I were the first to do it though, like you did (read up thread and see where you constantly called me dumb…”insults are not arguments” right?)

  • That is patently false. In the Masterpiece case they couldn’t even get a cake. Forget figurines! But yeah, no gay person is going to sue over not get a cake with a figurine on it…it is not “all or nothing” it is “just get the same something others are getting”.

  • But I agree with the compromise. I wish more Christians were thinking like you on that issue.

  • Wrong again. The hypocrisy arises when he picks and chooses which “sins” from his bible/religion he’s going to recognize in order to discriminate against others. It takes no chutzpah at all to recognize that, but it DOES take intelligence and the ability to reason — something most (but not all) religious folks I’ve met are incapable of. Those with the intelligence and ability to reason also call out Mr. Phillips and his supporters for their hypocrisy.

    “Sin” is a man-made construct, used by greedy, power-hungry men to control the masses. It works really well with peasants and the uneducated, and is a great acronym:
    Self Imposed Nonsense.
    But that’s all it is.

  • That’s ONE court, the Second Circuit. One other has ruled that way. There are Nine Circuits.

    Do the math.

  • That’s not how I understand it, but it would indeed be odd. A gay person could by buying a cake for the wedding of a straight relative. Not sure how he’d even know that it was for a gay wedding unless they told him or asked for it to be decorated in a manner that would make it obvious.

  • Reading through the first one deployed between the two of us was your “cookoo” to which I replied that you are not the brightest bulb in the box and it escalated from there. Nevertheless we appear to have moved past that point which is fine with me. Carry on.

  • Oh I misunderstood. I figured you meant the hay couple would order a normal wedding cake (ie one that is not rainbow colored) and just get the figurines themselves. That is a compromise. Otherwise we are back to discrimination and criticizing gays for standing up to it.

  • We already have a special Cabernet put aside for the night of Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the SCOTUS. It pairs so well with extra sharp Cheddar and exploding heads…

  • You’ve invented a whole fantastical scenario about what happened. Read the court case docs where facts are stipulated. It will be a disappointment to you but at least it will be enlightening.

  • Since it’s his faith, and therefore his choice, it cannot be hypocrisy.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypocrisy

    mass noun

    The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.

    Sin in most beliefs is a deity-made “construct”.

    Obviously you’ve sucked on the lemon used by greedy power-hungry men to sell pornography, self-gratification, and short-term pleasure to the masses. It’s working really well with the self-appointed “progressive” classes.

  • Stupid examples as usual. Trying to pretend the issue here was the product being requested. But in reality the only difference was the class of customers making the request.

    No, this was flat out discrimination of the “we don’t serve your kind here” variety. A new iteration of Jim Crow like behavior.

  • You are apparently unaware that anti discrimination laws never let a vendor refuse service on the basis of the class of customers.

    As for the “left” it’s good to know conservatives have flat out admitted they support all manner of discrimination and bigotry. Saves the trouble of having to hear denials of it later.

  • No you are simply lying and trying to reframe the argument because your analogy is entirely off point.

  • So you would disagree with the actions of the baker and tax preparer. Or you would have. But for your support of discrimination against gays as a matter of course.

  • That is a bogus charge. You don’t have even one bit of proof that he denied service “because the couple was gay.”

  • The people are irrelevant. Jack Phillips will deny service to anyone if the requested service entails making a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Anyone. He’s not “judging” the people. He’s “judging” the message.

  • Your charges are baseless. There is not one bit of proof that Jack Phillips denied service “because they were gay.”

  • More baseless claims. You don’t have one bit of proof that he would make a cake celebrating SSM, for anyone. You don’t have one bit of proof that he “wanted to make a distinction as to which customers may receive the goods and services advertised.” You don’t have one bit of proof that “the entire purpose of these actions are to segregate gays from open commerce”. Those are nothing but witch-hunter type charges.

  • No, you just felt the need to change the facts to suit a false narrative. Especially in your choice of words here.

    What you call “refusing to make a cake celebrating SSM” is better known as just refusing to serve a customer because they were gay. Rephrasing the act did not change its nature.

    “You don’t have one bit of proof that “the entire purpose of these actions are to segregate gays from open commerce”

    He has a business which is engaged in open commerce. He refused to serve customers because they were gay. he proof is in the facts itself. You seem to think that calling it something else denies what happened. Your entire spiel here is dishonest garbage. On its face, Philips acted no differently than any vendor had during Jim Crow. He just didn’t want to treat gays like any other customer. He wanted a legal right to treat them like social inferiors. Just like any other bigot who seeks legal permission to discriminate.

  • My charges are the facts of the case.

    He even claimed it was because they were gay. That his religious beliefs compelled him not to serve gay people like any other customers for his show.

    Your need to pretend rephrasing what the acts were belies how dishonest the claims were. What you call “celebrating SSM” is objectively referred to as simply refusing to provide goods and services normally sold in the business based on the class of customer requesting it.

    On its face it is no different than any other discrimination in open commerce based on the class of customer.

  • A Catholic school in Kansas denied entry to a child with same-sex parents. Before you conservatives get your panties in a bunch, the school was within its legal rights. But it appears the ‘sins’ of the parents are passed to the child.

  • At least you admit that “Christians” pick and choose what “sins” they want to recognize.

    You’ll have to prove there is a deity — and specifically YOUR deity — before you can maintain that it defined “sin”.

    As to your last paragraph, you’re projecting. I have nothing to do with those things, but it’s quite common for “Christians” to blame others for “sins” they themselves commit. The high profile examples (Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, & others) are just the tip of the iceberg, and every community has their own examples of the corruption within religion.

    BTW — YOUR attitude is what has driven me and millions of others out of churches and away from religion forever. You don’t know anything about me, yet try to enumerate MY “sins”. ROFLMAO It’s hilarious that you think yourself “righteous” enough to judge anyone. Keep it up! You continue to make our case.

  • No, he’s judging people AND violating the law. It will come back to bite him in the butt– just wait.

  • The government can’t define religion. It is a personal right. The government might refuse tax-exempt status or the courts can determine whether religious practices (actions) conform to the law. From where does anarchy arise?

  • If people can choose all of the laws they can follow, it sounds like anarchy. The folks on this site commenting on from the pro-discrimination side want every individual to be able to take their personal religious view and use it as a justification to not follow laws. You will have an infinite number of possibilities of how that manifests itself.

  • But it looks like it will be the courts defining the actual boundaries of religious freedom. And they may not line up with our expectations.

  • “At least you admit that ‘Christians’ pick and choose what ‘sins’ they want to recognize.”

    EVERYONE picks and chooses her or his beliefs, including atheists and agnostics.

    “You’ll have to prove there is a deity — and specifically YOUR deity — before you can maintain that it defined ‘sin’.”

    Absolutely not.

    The First Amendment gives every citizen the absolute right to believe or not believe whatever they wish.

    No proof is required.

    “BTW — YOUR attitude is what has driven me and millions of others out of churches and away from religion forever.”

    That appears to be a blessing for the churches, and apparently you believe for yourself.

    So, be happy …. and stop complaining.

  • You’re confusing one person’s “beliefs” with facts. Just because one person “believes” something is “a sin” doesn’t mean everyone does– even within the same faith community. While each is entitled under the 1st Amendment to “believe” whatever they wish, that doesn’t entitle them to decide for other people what constitutes “sin”. As I stated before, to prove your “deity’s” various “sins”, you must first prove your deity exists and/or has any authority over all humanity. While YOU may “believe” that of your deity, there is no proof of your, or any other, deity. I am, however, always open to any deity showing up in person and proving itself; however, there has never been any such demonstration. I do not accept self-appointed mouthpieces for any deities.
    “Beliefs” are simply opinions about religious ideologies — and you know what they say about opinions.

  • “Just because one person “believes” something is ‘a sin’ doesn’t mean everyone does– even within the same faith community.”

    It matters not a fig.

    “While each is entitled under the 1st Amendment to ‘believe’ whatever they wish, that doesn’t entitle them to decide for other people what constitutes ‘sin’.”

    As far as determining whether person A likes, provides professional services to, respects, or otherwise person B who is – in A’s opinion – sinning, they are certainly entitled.

    If believe extramarital sex is immoral, and I find that Bennie visits a brothel every time he’s in Nevada, I can cease placing business with him, not go to dinner with him, avoid him at the club, or any other legal action I deem appropriate.

    “As I stated before, to prove your ‘deity’s’ various ‘sins’, you must first prove your deity exists and/or has any authority over all humanity.”

    And, as I stated before, I have no obligation to prove a thing to you. I am entitled to believe in deity, you’re entitled not to believe in a deity.

    “’Beliefs’ are simply opinions about religious ideologies — and you know what they say about opinions.”

    Indeed, you have more than one, and so far all of them stink.

    Anything else?

  • Mr. Phillips’ Christian faith ALSO says that premarital sex, divorce & remarriage after are sins as well. If he has ever sold a cake to anyone who has engaged in those, he’s not being true to his faith and is choosing to “pick & choose” which “sins” he will and won’t recognize, as you’ve already admitted.

    You seem to have a problem differentiating “law” from “belief”. The two are quite different, and not remotely similar to each other. I’m sorry you’re so uneducable, but it’s not surprising given your indoctrination.

  • “Mr. Phillips’ Christian faith ALSO says that premarital sex, divorce & remarriage after are sins as well.”

    I don’t personally know that and neither do you.

    “If he has ever sold a cake to anyone who has engaged in those, he’s not being true to his faith and is choosing to ‘pick & choose’ which ‘sins’ he will and won’t recognize, as you’ve already admitted.”

    You really seem to be detached completely from the facts of the case.

    Mr. Phillips did NOT say he would not bake cakes for people engaged in “sin”.

    What he would not do is bake a cake celebrating a same sex marriage.

    He previously refused to bake cakes for Halloween, which he considered a pagan celebration.

    If he believed divorce is a sin, I assume that meant he would not bake a cake to celebrate a divorce.

    So, he did NOT refuse to serve gay people. In fact he had served this very couple before, and hired gay people>

    Get your facts sorted out ASAP.

    “You seem to have a problem differentiating ‘law’ from ‘belief’.”

    You seem to have a problem differentiating facts from feelings. The two are quite different, and in this case not remotely similar to each other.

  • Oh please. The Left constantly refuses service to those who they find morally reprehensible. About time the rest of the world have the same rights as the liberals.

  • Wrong again. He was more than happy to sell items that his store carries to gay people. He didn’t sell gay wedding cakes to anybody, regardless of their sexual orientation. Had they sent in their straight parents to purchase a gay wedding cake, they would have been denied as well because that isn’t an item that his bakery carries.

  • Now you are just making stuff up because the facts didn’t suit your narrative. Your prior argument was built in a false premise concerning the product. Your avoidance tells me everything here.

    Trying to shift goalposts and change your argument. He didn’t want to sell a cake to that couple because they were gay. A cake he was in the business of selling to any customer who walked in the door.

    It’s funny how you have to hem and haw to try to rephrase things and change the facts here to cover up what was plain old bigotry and discrimination in a business open to the public.

    Lying seems to come natural to Christians like yourself who seek terrible excuses for malicious acts.

  • The right apparently loves courting bigots and attacking basic civil liberties.

    There is nothing reprehensible about patronizing a business open to the public to buy goods and services normally sold there.

    There is something reprehensible about discrimination and making up cowardly excuses for it. Your position is morally indefensible.

    It would be nice if you approached the subject honestly. But you won’t.

  • Actually, I DO know, having been a Christian in the past and having spent 50 years reading and researching the bible, its origins, the culture and customs of the area and times, and more related things than you can imagine.

    The FACT that he makes and sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples proves he refused to do the same for the gay couple. Having designed and sold wedding cakes myself, I can authoritatively state that the ONLY thing he was “participating in” was the BUSINESS of baking and decorating wedding cakes.

    My “feelings” have nothing to do with the law and the facts. Mr. Phillips and his supporters — like you — are the ones allowing your “feelings” based on your religion to skew your understanding (or lack) of the law.

  • You have made your position muddied by using canned arguments and changing them when called out on them.

    You support segregation in a new form. That much is clear.

  • Are you involved in a contest with another poster to see which one of you can cram the most left wing buzzwords into a singular post? If so, I think you just won.

  • No my point was quite sound. It is you who is unable to argue your point without distorting the facts. That should be your first clue that your argument sucks.

  • “Actually, I DO know, having been a Christian in the past and having spent 50 years reading and researching the bible, its origins, the culture and customs of the area and times, and more related things than you can imagine.”

    So you have an opinion.

    So does he.

    “The FACT that he makes and sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples proves he refused to do the same for the gay couple.”

    Yes, he used to design and sell wedding cakes. He no longer does so for anyone.

    He refused to bake a rainbow same sex wedding cake. He also refused to put a dildo on a transgender, or bake a Halloween.

    “Having designed and sold wedding cakes myself, I can authoritatively state that the ONLY thing he was “participating in” was the BUSINESS of baking and decorating wedding cakes.”

    Again, you have an opinion.

    How you would you feel if I suggested that nude dancing was an exercise of free speech under the First Amendment?

    “My ‘feelings’ have nothing to do with the law and the facts.”

    That’s what I’ve been saying. In fact, I don’t even think they’ve met each other.

    “Mr. Phillips and his supporters — like you — are the ones allowing your ‘feelings’ based on your religion to skew your understanding (or lack) of the law.”

    Mr. Phillips walked away unconvicted.

    That seems to speak to my understand of the law and your total lack of it.

  • You were giving me what was known as the “Nazi cake” bluff.

    Using a crap analogy of plain old discrimination with nonsense about a patently outrageous request. The problem with garbage analogy is the person employing it spends more time defending the analogy than making a relevant argument. 🙂

    BTW that was already tried. The baker made the cake and let the person write their own message in icing. The customer lost the case.

  • Get bent, Loser.

    All you did was give me buzzwords, canned phrases and crappy analogy for what amounted to nothing more than a vendor saying “I don’t serve your kind”.

    If honest appraisal of your position distresses you so, then you should reconsider what you are really supporting.

  • Frankly, I’m all for nude dancing, though would refrain from it myself when the weather is cold. I don’t do cold even though my husband loves it. I’m built for triple-digit weather. 😊

  • I am sorry Spuddle, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and forth with a toddler tonight.

  • The analogy is sound. In both cases a baker is being asked to bake a wedding cake that they would fiercely object to the morality thereof.

  • I’ve read the court documents. And nowhere is there a statement from Phillips that he denied service ” because they were gay.” You made that up.

  • Your claim that refusing to make a cake celebrating SSM is the same as “refusing to serve a customer because they were gay” is as illogical as claiming that refusing to make a cake celebrating white supremacy is the same as refusing to serve a customer because they were white.

  • Yet you made up a completely phony claim about how he has treated straight couples. Go figure.

    Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece’s owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.

    Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]:2 The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for weddings of gay couples[2]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

    You are full of crap.

  • You don’tr have one bit of proof that his denial of service was based on “judging people”. And judging the message is not “violating the law”.

  • As I said, you spend more time defending the crap analogy than a cogent argument. No, its not only garbage but well worn garbage. The man refused to make the cake because the couple were gay.

    You have to lie incessantly in order to make your argument.

    “Masterpiece’s owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

  • Actually that is exactly what it was. The baker refused to provide a good/service he normally provided customers in the ordinary course of his business preciesly because they are gay.

    Calling the act, “refusing to celebrate a SSM” doesn’t change the act or its nature. It is also an admission of the bigoted intent of the vendor and yourself. That somehow they were social inferiors who were not entitled to the same level of civility as any other customer, because they were gay. You are under the mistaken impression that rephrasing what it was means a damn thing.

    There was a request, it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple. That’s all it was. Straight up discrimination based on personal bigotry. No different in any way from Jim Crow level refusal of service in open commerce 50 years ago.

    You are a liar. Your analogy is garbage.

    There was nothing about the cake which “celebrated” anything other than the mere presence of the customer. You are trying to pretend there was anything unique or special about the request. It wasn’t. As stated before, it was only because the customers were gay.

  • He openly STATED that he wouldn’t do their wedding cake because they were a same-sex couple, and that violates Colorado’s non-discrimination laws. That’s why Colorado rules against him.

    Are you SERIOUSLY that thick?

  • No, the man refused to make the cake because it was for a gay wedding. If the gay couple were buying a wedding cake for a straight friend’s wedding it would have been fine. If they’d sent a straight couple in there to buy a cake for a gay wedding, he wouldn’t have sold it to them either. The analogy with regards to forcing a Jewish baker to bake a wedding cake covered in swastikas is spot on, which is why it has you so worked up into a tizzy. The Christian baker finds the gay wedding cake to be offensive, just as the Jewish baker finds the swastika cake to be offensive. Even if the swastika cake was for an Indian wedding where the symbol is viewed as a peace sign or what have you, it would still be understandable if the Jewish baker refused to bake it on the grounds of finding it offensive.

  • It was a normal wedding cake, the customers happened to be gay. It was all about the class of people it was for, not the cake. You proved my point. There was nothing about the request itself which was somehow unreasonable or objectionable. You killed your own argument that used the analogy.

    “The analogy with regards to forcing a Jewish baker to bake a wedding cake covered in swastikas is spot on”

    No, Liar. Because the cake involved was no different from any other he normally sold. Only the type of customer being sold to. You made that clear already.

    All you are doing is trying to find a new spin on the same old discrimination. In its most honest terms, ones even you have admitted to here, the baker didn’t want to sell his wedding cakes to a gay couple, because they were gay. He didn’t want to treat them like any other customer making the same request. He was too much of a raging bigot to act with the most basic level of civility his business demanded.

    This is not an issue of religious belief or “being forced” or “celebrating an act”. There was no moral act or stand for conscience. This was just a malicious scumbag using the opportunity to act badly to others with impunity.

  • He treated them exactly like any non-gay customer who was making the same request; which was a cake for a gay wedding. Your argument isn’t getting any less dumb with repetition.

  • No he didn’t. He refused to sell a cake to them specifically because they were a gay couple. Doing something any other customers could do without a hassle.

    Your need to lie so obviously shows how inappropriate the actions really were.

    This was straightforward discrimination based on prejudice against the class of people the customers were. Nothing more than a new iteration of Jim Crow type bullcrap.

  • Why are you relying on the wording of a Wikipedia article? Here are the actual and undisputed facts of the case, as stated exactly in the Colorado Court of Appeals document. “In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.”
    https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

    It does not say that he denied them service because they were gay. You made that up.

  • “There was a request, it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.”

    I see you are doubling down on your baseless allegations. There is not one bit of proof that “it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.”

    “There was nothing about the cake which “celebrated” anything other than the mere presence of the customer.”

    Did they request a cake to celebrate their marriage?
    Is their marriage a same sex marriage?
    If the answer to both questions is yes, then the requested service entailed making a cake celebrating same sex marriage. Logic 101.

  • He wouldn’t make it because of what the requested cake celebrated. Not because they happened to be a same sex couple. Here are the undisputed facts from the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling:
    “In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.”
    The fact that they were a same sex couple was incidental. What mattered was that the cake was for celebrating same sex marriage. He would not make a cake for anyone – gay or straight – if the cake celebrated same sex marriage. Their sexual orientation was simply not a factor in his decision. The undisputed facts of the case show that it was all about WHAT was being celebrated – not WHO was doing the celebrating.

  • There is no baseless about it. I even quoted the wikipedia entry on the subject. It was clear from accounts of the matter. Nothing about the request was different from any other he had taken other than the fact that a gay couple made the request.

    ” There is not one bit of proof that “it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.””

    Now you are shifting goalposts here. But still wrong. Hostility was inherent in the act. There is no such thing as well intentioned discrimination. It is meant as an act of malice. To demean the customer and treat them as a social inferior. Something you are not allowed to do in open commerce.

    More relevant questions dealing with the actual legal issues here.
    -Is the baker a party to the wedding? No
    -Is it the baker’s business who is using the cake? No as long as they are paid for it
    -Is a wedding cake for a straight couple any different than one for a gay one? No
    -Were the gay couple treated the same way as any other customer? No
    -Did the baker have a duty to treat customers all the same way regardless of what class of people they were? Yes.

    Is there a religious freedom issue here? Not at all. Free exercise of religion does not entail a privilege to attack others in the name of their faith.

    Therefore:

    The baker discriminated against the gay couple and refused to sell a cake he would have made for any other customer.

  • Wikipedia is far better than your flat out unsubstantiated lying. Other sources could be used. But when Wikipedia is making your claims look foolish, you have really sunken to obvious levels of dishonesty.

    ” but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.””

    Meaning he did not want to treat the gay couple like any other customers. He considered them social inferiors because they were gay. So he refused to sell a cake he would normally sell to anyone else. That does not help your case at all. It is precisely analogous to Jim Crow era restaurants serving black customers, but only at the takeout counter.

  • His WHOLE BUSINESS is making cakes. He wouldn’t make it because he’s a self-righteous bigot.

  • Too bad that the actual facts as stated in the official court documentation upsets you that much. Maybe you need to study the facts BEFORE you pontificate on a subject.

  • So, your excuse for using Wikipedia instead of the official court document is that Wikipedia is better than “lying”. LOL That’s as ridiculous as excusing gluttony on the basis that it’s better than drunkenness!!! You position has gone from the absurd to the laughably absurd.
    In any event, even the Wikipedia article does not support your claim of this alleged statement by Phillips where he allegedly said that he denied service ” because they were gay.” The article just uses the word “gay” so many times that it may convince the weak-minded that “gay” was a factor in the decision to deny service. But if swaying the weak-minded is what you call “proof”, then your position is even more pathetic than I thought. If you can’t prove your claim logically using the facts as stated in the official court ruling, then you have no proof. Case closed.

  • Even the Wikipedia article does not support your claim that “it was refused because the vendor wanted to be hostile to a gay couple.” But its choice of wording may convince the weak-minded, or those too lazy to read the official court documents. But proof requires that you use the undisputed case facts exactly as stated explicitly in the official court ruling. Here it is again for your convenience:
    “In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.”
    If you can’t prove your claim using the facts as stated in the official court proceedings, then you have no proof. Period.

  • I can tell the difference between a cake with hate speech and one without by simply looking at them.

    If you are looking at two identical wedding cakes, what is different about the “gay wedding cake”?

ADVERTISEMENTs