Why the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Matters to All Americans

In this Sept. 1, 2016, photo, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, stands for a portrait near a display of wedding cakes at his store in Lakewood, Colo.

By Michael Brown Published on December 1, 2017

Should a gay baker be required by law to design a cake with the message, “God hates fags”? Should an African American t-shirt maker be required to design a t-shirt saying, “Long live the KKK?” Should a Muslim caterer be required to provide pork for a secular event? Should a Jewish photographer be forced to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath? The answer to all these questions is: Of course not. Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the “wedding” of two women (or men)?

That is the big question the Supreme Court will be answering next week when it hears the Masterpiece Cakes case involving Christian baker Jack Phillips.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Phillips, has pointed out the following:

  1. “Jack does not discriminate.” He was perfectly happy to sell the gay couple, who subsequently took him to court, cookies and brownies and anything else pre-made off of his shelves.
  2. “Jack has turned down other cakes in the past,” including Halloween cakes and lewd cakes.
  3. “Jack has faced anti-religious bigotry as well as threats and intimidation simply because he declined to promote an event.” So he is the one being singled out for unfair treatment.
  4. “Jack owns a private family business, and he doesn’t give up his rights when he sells his art.” And by calling his business “Masterpiece Cakes,” he is making clear that for him, they are works of art.
  5. Accordingly, “Jack’s shop has been called an ‘art gallery of cakes.’” And…
  6. “Wedding cakes made up about 40 percent of Jack’s business,” and these are all custom designed. But due to Colorado’s laws and legal rulings to date, he has had to drop this part of his business entirely.

This Should be a No-Brainer

Now, common sense would say that this case should be a no-brainer — a slam-dunk win for Jack Phillips and his attorneys. And in principle, I agree. The problem, however, is that “gay rights” have been exalted to such a degree that these “rights” trump all other rights and freedoms — including our freedoms of conscience, speech and religion.

In the case at hand, because Phillips is a committed Christian, he doesn’t make cases mixed with alcohol (nor can he be required to), he doesn’t make cakes for lewd bachelor parties (nor can he be required to), and he doesn’t make cakes for horror-themed events (nor can he be required to). But when he cannot, in good conscience, use his artistic skills to make a cake for a same-sex “wedding,” he can be charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws to the point that the state can now discriminate against him as a Christian.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Put another way, you can freely exercise your Christian beliefs unless those beliefs offend gays. In that case, you’re breaking the law.

And what if a Hindu came in and wanted a “Krishna is Lord” cake? Phillips could politely decline, without legal penalty or pressure. The same with a Muslim baker declining to bake a cake for a Christian with the words, “Jesus is Lord.”

But wouldn’t that offend the Hindu and the Christian wanting to buy the cakes? Perhaps so, but the bakers are rightly protected by the law and cannot be penalized for refusing the business.

Why, then, are gays and lesbians treated differently? Why are they put in a special category?

The sympathetic answer would be that society has overcompensated for perceived past injustices. And so, the pendulum has swung from one side (mistreatment of gays and lesbians) to the other side (overprotection of gays and lesbians).

The more realistic answer is that some gay activists have always had the ultimate goal of silencing those who resist their cause.

Freedom of Conscience Hangs in the Balance

As I’ve said for more than a decade, those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet. And as a Christian attorney once commented to me, “Those who were once put in jail want to put us in jail.”

If the Supreme Court finds him guilty, the implications for America will be massive.

In the days ahead, many on the left will argue that Phillips was guilty of discriminating against gay customers. But that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and if the Supreme Court finds him guilty, the implications for America will be massive.

It will mean that the highest court in the land has ruled that, in virtually all conceivable cases, gay rights trump religious rights. And it will mean that Christians in particular can be forced to violate their consciences and their deeply held, historic beliefs under penalty of law, with the real potential of losing their very livelihoods. And should they still refuse to comply, it could mean a jail sentence too.

While some on the left (including LGBT activists) will say, “This is not what we intended,” plenty of others will gloat. After all, if we deserved to be thrown to the lions in one generation, it’s no big deal to imprison us in another generation.

I’m hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing. If not, my leftist readers may mock my words today, but you will mark them tomorrow.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Nicholas

    Christians end up taking a beating because most of the progressives are former Christians who loathe the faith of their childhood after years of secular indoctrination.

    • Topher Smith

      What beating?

      • Andy6M

        Like the beating cake maker Jack Phillips is taking. Not all beatings use a fist and a club.

        • Topher Smith

          What beating? Having to follow the law?

          • Paul

            Oh, you’re one of those ‘follow the law’ types of homosexual activists. Were you scrreaming ‘follow the law’ when sodomy was against the law? Yea I didn’t think so.

          • Topher Smith

            Sad drivel. Feel better, burger flipper?

          • Bryan V.

            Always unable to answer questions and argue your case.

            You lose again coward.

          • Topher strikes me as more of a provocateur than anything, kinda like that Milo guy.

          • m-nj

            Well with that i can agree with you.

          • Paul

            Yup, on weekends when the family is over and weather permitting.

            Interesting to see your attempt to disparage a person based on their occupation. Says volumes about your rotten character, almost as much as your embrace of homosexuality.

          • Topher Smith

            I am tracing you now. I will be sharing your posts with your frinds, family, and employers.

          • Paul

            Now you’re threatening me? Anything to try and silence your detractors, you’re a true champion of homosexuals I see since that’s the same MO being used on this baker and anyone else who gets in your way. Any friend who would disassociate from me on the basis of our comment exchange isn’t much of a friend, family..it is what it is, and employers, well my boss wholeheartilly agrees with me here, I see him every morning in the mirror.

            You keep adding more facets to your rotten character, what else do you have to offer?

          • Topher Smith

            You have shared nothing but yor uneducated opinion. Spokeo it is. Bad choice, little brain.

          • Paul

            Seems threats is all you have to offer.

          • Topher Smith

            Promises of action. And facts. You should have stoped, little brain.

          • Paul

            The Bible teaches us to pray for our enemies, as such I just took some time to do just that. I don’t know what drives you to threaten people who challenge your comments, and after a little investigating I see you are busy threatening others as well.

            I wonder how it is possible for a person like yourself to come to an understanding that you need the salvation of Jesus Christ. But He saved a wretch like me, so there is hope for you as well.

          • Topher Smith

            How is that a threat? Where is your evidence?

          • Paul

            Oh please, we both know the entire point of your comments about tracing, spokeo and sharing with employers is all about intimidation, trying to silence people and do them harm. Your own words are evidence, that is assuming you haven’t edited your previous comments.

          • Topher Smith

            I always do what I say. Share the evidence, little brain.

          • Deplorable Rican ☨ʳᵉᵈᵉᵉᵐᵉᵈ

            How completely fascist of him… but then he is a degenerate leftist so that isn’t a surprise.

          • Deplorable Rican ☨ʳᵉᵈᵉᵉᵐᵉᵈ

            LOL I bet your boss is a VERY understanding man

          • Andy6M

            Topher Smith – I’d like to respond without the anger I see in some of the other exchanges. My response to you would be that he is following the law in that he has a long history of serving whoever comes into his shop. That’s very well established in fact. The issue at hand is whether or not he is allowed to refrain from being involved in certain things. At what point does he get to opt out. Do you believe that every shop keeper in every business has to accede to every demand?

          • Topher Smith

            No, that would be asinine, just like the very suggestion. That isnt following the law.

          • Andy6M

            So where is the line? Where does a business owner get to put the breaks on? The cake maker serves everyone, but does not serve for every type of occasion. Why is that outside the lines?

          • Topher Smith

            What? Try again. That was gibberish.

          • Andy6M

            I don’t think that’s gibberish. He sells to every person that comes in the door regardless of sex, religion, sexual preference. But he doesn’t sell for every type of function that is asked of him. He doesn’t accede to every demand that is made of him. Which demands does he have to accede to and which ones does he get to take a pass on?

          • Topher Smith

            Your question is pointless. He must follow the law, little brain. Is that clear?

          • Andy6M

            Please, Topher, I haven’t resorted to calling you names. I’ve made the effort to exchange in good faith. Yes, he must follow the law. The question is whether or not his particular actions (or refusal to act) actually put him outside the law as it was intended. If the law implies that he must accede to every demand of every customer then he is outside the law. But is that really what the law requires? If it does then we live in tyranny void of self determination and the basic freedoms guaranteed by documents like the constitution.

      • Nicholas

        Big media, Hollywood, and mainstream pop culture is decidedly non-Christian. It’s rare when big movie studios or CBS/CNN/ABC/NBC/NYT/WAPO portray conservative Christians in a positive light.

        • Topher Smith

          Drivel. Why post?

          • Nicholas

            Yeah. You.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    While I’m personally not convinced that the bakers decision to refuse the “wedding” cake request was the only viable alternative, I am thoroughly convinced that this gentleman was acting on the basis of a legitimate conscientious objection. One that should take precedence over any & all so called ” illegal discrimination”, anti gay accusations & anything else the left can contrive to make this baker out to be a criminal !
    Sure Jesus possibly made bed frames ( did they have bed frames 2000 years ago ? ) that would support the bed used for immoral behavior. Sure Paul possibly made tents for those who would hide their elicit sensual activities under its cover. Sure these examples don’t represent a perceived endorsement of anti biblical beliefs. My point is that while there may be room for differences of opinion on “Christian practice” there is no room for discounting sincerely held “religious” convictions !
    Any verdict other than a complete vindication for this “man accused of what should amount to a cut & dry case of conscientious objection predicated upon established & accepted beliefs that the greater majority of this nation has upheld for almost 250 years would be as Mr Brown implies a travesty of justice. God knows we just witnessed such an unjustifiable compromise just yesterday ! We should expect the highest court of the land to be more rational than a jury of San Franciscans ….!

  • Jack Phillips one wrote, “I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages.”

    I’m not sure I understand exactly WHAT about the cake Mr. Phillips objects to. Is it just placing topper on the cake depicting two grooms, or is it just creating a cake specifically for a Gay couple?

    Imagine this scenario: A Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couple comes in wanting a unique cake for their wedding. They want four tiers, all enrobed with peach-colored fondant, with white piping and pink roses. “No problem,” says Jack Phillips.

    So imagine a Gay couple coming in and requesting exactly the same cake. No “two groom” toppers, no rainbows, nothing that screams “GAY.” Will Jack Phillips decline this order simply because the couple in question is Gay? THAT’S what I’d like to know … because if Mr Phillips would turn away a Gay couple for a cake he would ordinarily be happy to create for a Straight couple, that is flagrantly in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

    But if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, I guess any business owner can turn away ANYONE and use “religious freedom” as justification.

    • Howard Rosenbaum

      As I noted in my prior post it’s the endorsement of a same sex “marriage” that Mr Phillips conscientiously objects to. I may entertain other biblically appropriate options that were I the baker would not compromise my deeply held “Christian” world view.
      As a composer of tunes that speak truth to my heart & the hearts of those “w/ears to hear” I would not change a single line were it to compromise the lyrical integrity of the tune. Especially since I perceive my “artistry” as primarily a vehicle through which the thoughts of “The Most High” may be communicated in a memorable & intriguing fashion. Heck, if it was simply a matter of monetizing a marketable commodity where my artistic expression was concerned then lyrical integrity not too unlike the artisan skills that Mr Phillips has contributed to his “Masterpiece creations” would no longer be an issue. Humanity has been immeasurably enriched by the contributions made throughout its storied history because creative folk, small & great have held on to principals such as those Mr Phillips is being tried for ….!

      • John Connor

        Baking a cake is not an endorsement of the celebration. It is just fee for service

        • GPS Daddy

          Just like fractals are just numbers on a paper.

        • Conr

          That is an incorrect assumption. Are you a baker?

    • GPS Daddy

      Chuck, things today are EXACTLY the way they should be… on Darwinian Evolution. If Jack Phillips wins at the Supreme Count then things are EXACTLY the way they should be… If Jack looses that, again, on Darwinian Evolution things are EXACTLY the way they should be. You are simply playing out the role that evolution has brought you too as are we.

    • Jeremy L

      I once read that he thinks three tiers on a wedding cake represent the groom, bride, and Christ. But I’m positive he’d be more than willing to do your hypothetical four-tier cake for a heterosexual couple because he’s a hypocrite.

    • disqus

      How is he supposed to know they are gay by just looking at them? That’s why you can’t argue its the same as racial discrimination.

  • Concerned Christian

    One of the things that’s missing is the idea of a business license. Business licenses are issued by the locale with the understanding that the business will serve the general public. However, businesses do reserve some rights in determining what customers they will serve.

    So these scenarios are not the same:
    ==========================================================================================
    Should a gay baker be required by law to design a cake with the message, “God hates “?
    Should an African American t-shirt maker be required to design a t-shirt saying, “Long live the ?”
    Should a Muslim caterer be required to provide pork for a secular event?
    Should a Jewish photographer be forced to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath?
    ==========================================================================================

    I don’t think saying i want a cake for a wedding equates to producing a tee-shirt that states “God hates ” or “Long live the ” .
    A devout Muslim never touches pork. It doesn’t matter what the event is.
    A devout Jew never works on the Sabbath, no matter what the event is.

    My guess is that if Jack Phillips stated out in the front of his store that he only serves Christians, he would be on firmer legal ground. Also, there’s a difference in discriminating against an event “Halloween” and against a group of people, Gays. He makes wedding cakes presumably for christian and non-Christian whites, blacks, Muslims, Jews, atheist, etc. Just not for gay people.

    Maybe he could have found some common ground with the couple and pointed them to a different baker. However, now the issue is before the Supreme court and will have lasting impact. This is a great example of:

    “Matthew 5:25
    Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.”

    • Paul

      This case, much like the similar ones regarding photographers has more to do with forcing artists to create something they disagree with. You’re assuming the only objection is to homosexual weddings, but a Christian would also object to polygamy, forced child marriage, or ‘marrying’ an animal an inanimate object or even one’s self. We just haven’t sunk to those new lows in the US….yet.

      • Lakewood, Colorado (where Jack Phillips has his bakery) is part of the Denver metropolitan area, and no doubt there are PLENTY of a bakeries in Denver who are more than willing to create wedding cakes for Gay couples. But what if the couple in question lived in a much smaller town out in the middle of nowhere? If my husband-to-be and I needed a wedding cake, and the only bakery in town that made wedding cakes was run by a Muslim family, that’s where I would go.

        • Paul

          if there was no bakery in town what would you do, cancel your event?

          • I would find SOMEONE to make the cake, or make it myself …. but why should I have to drive 100 miles to a bakery that will make a cake for me, just because the baker next door doesn’t like Gay people …. or Muslims …. or Blacks?

          • Paul

            Actually I have dealt with it, your assumption is completely wrong. Being told in public school that I couldn’t participate in certain activities because the quota of ‘white’ people was already full. And then in college dealing with affirmative action. I dealt with the worst kind of discrimination, the kind done by the government in law.

            But a bakery isn’t the government. You may think his cakes taste horrible anyway and drive a 100 miles for a better cake. You may think he can’t decorate a cake worth a hoot. You may hate that he is Christian and drive a 100 miles to give business to a homosexual baker. People discriminate every day in their choices, it is delusional to think it doesn’t happen. But for some reason homosexuals want to compel this artist to create something he disagrees with. The end result of that is a world you really don’t want if you stop for a moment and really think about it.

            A wedding cake is a creative art form with decoration and messaging. It isn’t the same as going to dunkin for a dozen donuts. Compelled creation and speech for artists is a horrible direction for a society, but that is exactly what this is about. Step away from your homosexual advocacy for a few minutes and consider the consequences here. Sadly it has already happened to photographers, a profession with clear copyright provisions in the creation of their work with every click of the shutter. But they have been fined for not creating their artwork to have homosexual content. Absolutely horrible.

          • Once again, Paul, if Jack Phillips will not sell the EXACT SAME CAKE to a Gay couple that he would to a Straight couple, it has nothing to do with his “creative art form.”

          • Paul

            So if the cakes have any customized color, decorating or messaging then you side with the baker?

          • Dena

            In the article he offered to sell them all ready made cakes – just not a custom cake.

          • Andy6M

            You’re wrong – it’s about the intended use and the assumed endorsement of the baker to its intended use.

          • Paul

            I’ll ask again… So if the cakes have any customized color, decorating or messaging then you side with the baker?

          • Conr

            It has everything to do with that, as it is a protected form of speech.

          • Jim Walker

            There you go again, playing the victim.

          • Conr

            Your convenience doesn’t give you the ability to compel someone else’s speech….

      • Concerned Christian

        “polygamy, forced child marriage, or ‘marrying’ an animal an inanimate object or even one’s self.”

        The majority of Christians, not just conservative Christian, disagree with these practices.

        However, the majority of Christians agree with same sex marriage. Conservative Christians may not see these people as Christian, however, the supreme court will.

        “We just haven’t sunk to those new lows in the US….yet.”

        People come to Jesus because of their own problems, maybe if Christians focused on that we could avoid sinking to those lows?

        • Paul

          “However, the majority of Christians agree with same sex marriage. ”

          LOL

          • Concerned Christian

            Well, a better way of putting it is that the only group of Christians that oppose same sex marriage are black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants. The majority of Catholics and white mainline Protestants do support it.

            www(dot)pewforum(dot)org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

          • Paul

            If/when a Christian embraces homosexual activity as acceptable behavior they are embracing sin and are actively and purposefully rebelling against God. Such people are no longer part of the Christian community. That’s why I LOL at your statistic, the number of Christians who support same sex ‘marriage’ is zero. The fact some seriously misguided and rebellious people claim to be Christian doesn’t make it so, and their claim that sin is good doesn’t make it so.

          • Concerned Christian

            Ah, now i understand where you’re coming from.

            I’m not talking about gay people. I’m talking about those Christians who believe people have a right to their own individual freedoms (sin) as long as it does not cause physical harm to others.

            Christians believe that fornication, adultery, and lying are sins. However, very few want to criminalize it. The same applies to homosexuality. I know that most evangelicals would argue that they don’t want to criminalize it, however, depriving someone of their rights is in essence saying that you can ride the bus but you must sit in the back.

          • Paul

            Earlier you claimed claimed that a majority of Christians agreed with or supported the sin of homosexual behavior. Now you’re trying to say they don’t want to criminalize it. Your argument keeps shifting and fading away. I don’t care how you want to slice it but when a Christian decides that sin is good then they have lost their way. It doesn’t matter if they participate in homosexual behavior themselves or validate the sinful actions of others, either way they are calling sin good.

          • Concerned Christian

            Here’s the disconnect. The cost of the the sins of fornication, adultery, alcohol/drug abuse, far exceeds the cost to society of homosexuality.

            However, I don’t see evangelical Christians pushing to do anything about any of them. Now if i said that evangelicals support those behaviors you would say certainly not.

            The majority of ALL Christians believe people have the right to sin. Unless you’re pushing laws to make those behaviors illegal, by your logic, they have the right to be sinners. Evangelicals somehow see homosexuality as a super sin. Then claim that anyone that is not against it is for it.

            Even in your response, it seems that you believe I’m talking about gays calling themselves Christians. I am not. I’m talking about Christians who are not opposed to someone else practicing the lifestyle. I didn’t say that those Christians believe that what gays are doing is not sin.

            If you really believe this statement:

            “I don’t care how you want to slice it but when a Christian decides that sin is good then they have lost their way”

            Then we need to be a Theocracy and only have a Bible and completely throw out the Constitution!

          • Paul

            “However, I don’t see evangelical Christians pushing to do anything about any of them.”

            Then you mustn’t be looking very hard.

            “If you really believe this statement:
            “I don’t care how you want to slice it but when a Christian decides that sin is good then they have lost their way”
            Then we need to be a Theocracy and only have a Bible and completely throw out the Constitution!”

            What are you even talking about? You know what, never mind, I’ve got work to do and I’m wasting precious time with you. Carry on with your pro homosexual agenda, nothing you say will convince me it is good, and nothing I say will convince you it is evil.

          • Conr

            I don’t know anyone who considers Catholics to be Christians…

          • Concerned Christian

            Other than Catholics themselves which applies to 6 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.

            Do you personally know any Catholics? Honestly, about 30 years ago, I didn’t think they thought of themselves as Christians but a Catholic told me that they did. Then I researched it and found that they are considered to be the largest Christian group in the world.

          • Conr

            Yes I mis spoke. Can we reclaim the term? lol

          • Concerned Christian

            Most definitely! 🙂

          • Conr

            I LOL’d too…

        • Conr

          It doesn’t matter what ‘the majority of Christians’ agree with… Freedom of religion protects any religion no matter how small. Not what the ‘majority’ think. Please rethink your logic, you are promoting mob rule…

          • Concerned Christian

            By that logic Mormons should be able to have multiple wives and people should be able to refuse medical services for their children.

            Freedom of religion is not an absolute. Otherwise we would live in a Theocracy.

          • Conr

            That wasn’t my point, you stated “However, the majority of Christians agree with same sex marriage”

            I’m stating it is irrelevant what the majority of Christians believe, since as you concur, we don’t live in a theocracy. Policy isn’t based on christian beliefs anymore, I’m not sure why that is relevant.

    • m-nj

      “Maybe he could have found some common ground with the couple and pointed them to a different baker.”

      I think if you look into the whole history of the case, you will find that he directed them to several other possible bakers. I know that in other similar cases that is what the accused party had done.

      Also, I have not seen the specifics on exactly what the gay couple asked for. Was the baker going to be required to inscribe two names of the same sex on the cake somewhere, or put two male figures on the top? That constitutes him doing something that he finds morally objectionable, since he would be endorsing their unBiblical “marriage”. This is the same as a t-shirt maker silk screening something that he objected to.

      • Concerned Christian

        By that logic, would he make a cake of an interracial couple? Finding something morally objectionable is not grounds for refusing service.

        The majority of Christians support gay marriage. Conservative Christians may not think that those Christians that support it are Christian but the Supreme Court will.

        Based on Christian support of gay marriage, legally, the baker is acting just like the people who refused service to interracial couples and hid behind the Bible to justify it.

        • Conr

          WRONG again, man I just keep finding these gems you’ve posted. This is a free speech issue…..

          • Concerned Christian

            it became free speech when he kept losing on the religion argument. He doesn’t believe that the religious freedom argument is a winner with the Supreme court so he’s throwing a hail Mary.

          • disqus

            Not sure why religious freedom wouldn’t be a winning argument, its pretty much spelled out in the first amendment.

        • disqus

          It is and always has been grounds for refusing service, or gay owned or supporting bakeries wouldn’t be doing the same thing.

    • Patmos

      You do realize that Matthew 5:25 deals with God’s law and not man’s law don’t you? Or maybe you think Jesus wants people to break God’s law?

      It’s amazing how clueless you are.

      Oh yeah that’s right, you’re not a “Concerned Christian” you’re a Fake Christian! I forgot, my mistake.

      • Concerned Christian

        Really? who then is the “adversary”. Jesus?

        I’ve never heard of Jesus being referred to as the adversary, that’s a new one.

        • Patmos

          Jesus is saying there to resolve your disputes before you even go to court, in other words be true and honest about what you are doing, but again he is not referring to the courts of man made laws. That would make no sense.

          On a side note, this also ties into the prophecy of Jeremiah about God’s laws being written on believer’s hearts.

          You are so unbelievably clueless, that I can’t consider you to be anything more than a fake Christian troll.

          • Concerned Christian

            Well here’s the Amplified reading of that scripture:

            ==============================================================================
            “25 Come to terms quickly [at the earliest opportunity] with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way [to court], so that your opponent does not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you are thrown into prison. 26 I assure you and most solemnly say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid the last [a]cent.”
            ==============================================================================

            I’m not sure how you can read that scripture in any other way other than as a reference to secular court. We have no “adversaries” or “opponents”, in Heaven do we?

            Also, any lawyer will tell a client that you can be absolutely right and still lose. That’s why you avoid conflicts as much as possible because in this world you never know the outcome.

            Clueless maybe? But on this issue, I’m in pretty good company!

    • Dena

      But would baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding afirm your support for gay weddings? What if you think gay marriage it’s morally wrong? Do you have the right to your Religious beliefs and morals?

      • Concerned Christian

        What if i worked for a company that supports gay rights. Does that mean that everyone that works for the company supports it?

        If I work around black, white, Muslim, Jews, or women, does that mean that I’m not a bigot, a racist, or a sexist?

        The gun industry makes a device that they know people will use to kill others illegally, does that mean they support crime?

        We live in a democracy and we don’t allow someone’s deeply rooted personal beliefs to deprive others of public accommodations. If you sale cakes to the public, the public includes all people. If your argument is that the cakes are only for people that meet your moral standards then you should advertise it as such. As I said, I think he would have firmer legal ground to stand on.

        • Dena

          I draw pictures as a hobby. If I were to go into business drawing pictures, I would be selective in what kind of pictures I would draw for clients. If someone asked me to draw something phonographic I would say no. If someone asked me to draw something I don’t agree with I would say no. That includes support for neo-nazis event, KKK event and gay weddings. Don’t I have the right to refuse doing these projects? However, if someone asked me to draw a mountain scene – it doesn’t matter if they’re gay, black or neo-nazi. It’s all about the subject matter that someone is asking me to design.

          • Concerned Christian

            Art is different from selling products as a retailer. From my understanding, the cake baker has a retail license. Also, this is why an actor/actress has to agree, in contract, to what scenes they will do. The director can’t all of sudden demand that they do an objectionable scene.

            Also, I did tech support and a customer who ran a porn site wanted assistance. I told him that I would assist as long as I didn’t have to view the site. He was fine with that. Otherwise, I would have gotten a co-worker to assist him.

            Bottom line is that the cake baker didn’t claim that he was an artist until he was sued. Also, if the argument is that there is no moral equivalency difference between neo-nazis, the KKK, and gays, he is truly going to lose.

          • Conr

            That assumption is incorrect, retail is simply a means of doing business it has nothing to do with the form of product that is sold.

            That was your choice to decide to provide that service. It has no relevancy to the baker.

            It doesn’t matter when he claimed he was an artist. If that mattered everyone who is concerned about being sued should just make sure they say they are an artist when they start a business.

            No, the argument is that someone can not be compelled to speech they do not support. Previous case law supports this issue even in situations regarding commerce.

          • Concerned Christian

            By the logic, someone could refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial couple. They could reference their first amendment right that they don’t agree with race mixing.

            Look up “Racemixing is Not Christian” by Paul Downey.

          • Conr

            If they someone believed that it was unbiblical to have an interracial marriage and they were asked to bake a cake for said wedding, than yes I think they should have the right to decline. Do I agree? No. But that’s the burden of free speech, we get to hear things we don’t like, because in free speech feelings don’t matter. Westboro baptist church despite their intensely disturbing message won their case when someone tried to restrict them from protesting military funerals. It doesn’t matter if society believes it is detestable.

          • Concerned Christian

            Well you’re consistent.

            Just keep in mind that the reason that the baker is facing this issue is because of issues of race & gender discrimination in the past. Blacks & women were having to either not receive service or pay more for services.

            Free speech works when you’re in the majority. If a Muslim refused to sale to Jews, they would be put out of business. If a woman charged more for men, she would be put out of business. If Westboro baptist church, were a Black Panther group, they would be put of business.

            Free speech is great but it has been abused to legitimize discrimination. That’s why we have laws to prevent this abuse.

    • A business license is an affront to liberty. You’re accepting slavery, by begging your master for permission to conduct business. Besides THAT, they’ve been used repeatedly to oppress minorities AND prevent competiton.

      • Concerned Christian

        your response brings clarity to an issue that I’ve always wondered about.

        Conservatives are forever complaining about taxes and the overreach of the federal government. However, anyone that’s tried to open a business knows how difficult it can be dealing with local zoning, health, and employment laws. Also, I’m not talking about democratically controlled areas. I’m talking about my area where local government has been controlled for years by conservatives. This has a much more negative impact on business than anything going on with the federal government.

        Also, this has nothing to do with minorities. This has to do with the fact that no one likes competition. A black person, liberal, or woman will try to destroy competitors just like a white conservative man will.

        A business license may be an affront, but name the pro-business conservative christian pushing to end the practice. It may be an affront and I indeed may be accepting slavery but aren’t you doing the same if you’re not pushing your local community to end the practice?

        • Pssst. Hi. Nice to meet you, I’m pushing to end the slavery of business licenses…among 47,000 OTHER unconstitutional practices of our government.

          I’m pushing slavery…by advocating freedom?

    • Andrew Mason

      Oh bother, forgot about the filter!

      Actually comparing a homosexual cake to a t-shirt stating God hates f-gs, or long live the K^3 is entirely reasonable. The former is offensive, the latter two need not be. God hates f-gs is Biblically inaccurate but you could include an image of someone coughing their lungs out, perhaps on the back of the t-shirt. Similarly an African-American could be quite happy to print a ‘Long Live the K^3’ t-shirt. Just add a stereotypical pajama guy swinging from a noose in the tree and it becomes satire.

      As for Muslims not touching pork, or Jews not working their Sabbath, doesn’t that depend on their employment conditions? What of truck drivers expected to transport and touch pork, or alcohol? When a firm sacked Muslim drivers who’d refused to transport their cargo the courts ruled in favour of the Muslims.

      Except that Phillips doesn’t only serve Christians – that wouldn’t be a Christian position. And it’s not that he’s refusing to make wedding cakes ordered by homosexuals, only that he’s refusing to create offensive products e.g. a cake celebrating homosexual marriage. That is no different to refusing to create a cake celebrating Halloween.

      Except that suggesting other bakers doesn’t matter. So long as one Christian baker refuses to provide cakes supporting homosexuality there will be court cases. This is about power and supremacy, not about being refused service.

      I’d suggest John 15:19-20
      If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

      • Concerned Christian

        Well Muslims have been avoiding pork and Jews have been celebrating the
        Sabbath since the religions were founded.
        Blacks have been terrorized by the KKK since the KKK was founded.
        More gays have been killed for being gay (not by Christians) than gays have killed Christians for being Christian.

        If for instance the gay couple wanted something pornographic on the cake, then the baker could make the offensive argument. If you’re going to state that something is offensive to your faith, the majority of your faith should agree with it. Opposition to gay rights rest squarely on the shoulders of Conservative Evangelical Christians & conservative Catholics.

        Evangelical Christians may believe that any Christian that believes in gay rights is not a Christian, but the court may not make that distinction.

        • Andrew Mason

          No, Muslims try to avoid pork but it’s not something they’re all paranoid about. A chap I knew enjoyed pork dumplings on several occasions before discovering they were pork and reluctantly veering towards other, more Islamically acceptable, choices. Actually more Christians have been killed for being Christian than homosexuals have been killed for their lifestyle choice.

          Except not everyone considers pornography offensive, and erotica is becoming more mainstream. Even public libraries are offering erotica collections for instance. And I disagree that the majority of a faith must hold a particular viewpoint for it to be true. That basis makes religion a matter of democracy, not truth. The real question is what the Bible says. Seems like you’re advancing an inconsistent argument.

          Courts don’t rule on the basis of what others believe but on whether an individual holds a genuine belief.

          • Concerned Christian

            I didn’t say Muslim wouldn’t enjoy pork, i said that they avoid pork for religious reasons.

            I’m not saying that Christians haven’t been killed. I’m saying that, in this country, I’ve never seen a Christian physically threatened for being a Christian. But from grade school I’ve seen gays bullied and people called gay slurs because they acted a certain way.

            Also, courts most definitely rule on the basis of what others believe. Clearly whites used the Bible to justify slavery and Jim Crow. Here’s a statement from Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

            Religion is most certainly restrained in a democracy that’s why Mormons can’t have multiple wives or why people can’t deny major medical treatment to their kids based on their religion.

            Religion in a democracy is not an absolute. That would make it a Theocracy.

          • Andrew Mason

            Whereas I’ve seen people abused for going about their ordinary lives, calls for the burning of churches, and the crucifixion of dissenters. I realise that sounds like I’m in some sort of extreme Islamic nation, but I’m not.

            Actually your argument doesn’t follow. You claim that courts rule on the basis of what others believe, then you quote what a judge believes – that God created the races on different continents. Problem that position is Darwinian not Biblical.

            Actually some Mormons do have multiple wives – they’re just not granted recognition by the government i.e. there is no marriage equality.

            Not religion being absolute in a democracy would not make it a theocracy. A theocracy can only exist when one religion is paramount. And in the context of Christianity you’d almost certainly need a particular branch – Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants etc disagree on a number of points.

          • Concerned Christian

            I quoted the Judge because he’s a Christian making those statements. You can say Darwinian but that was the belief of the majority of Christian whites in this country during the area of Jim Crow.

            On Mormons, that’s my point. Their religious belief of multiple wives is not recognized by the state or the federal government on the grounds of religious freedom. Why? Because Protestant and Catholic Christians in this country don’t believe they should be. There’s no cause for concern of limiting the religious beliefs of Mormons, just themselves.

            “Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants etc disagree on a number of points.”

            That’s my point. The baker is trying to hide behind religion. What’s the difference between refusing to make a wedding cake for sinners and one for gays? It’s the same difference as being denied a cake because your gay vs you’re on your second marriage.

            Can someone deny you a public service because they don’t like you? For me a using your religious conviction to deny someone a service feels the same as someone using their racist convictions to deny you a service. Both are saying that you are unworthy to be served.

          • Andrew Mason

            Is he a Christian? What you’re quoting directly contradicts Scripture – which says all men are descended from Adam and Eve, as well as descended from Noah, and instead reflects the scientific racism of the period. It was a court giving a ruling based on scientific beliefs not Scripture.

            Again that’s not entirely accurate – SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a sacred obligation between a man and a woman, but one that could be regulated by government. Polygamy by contrast was an odious practice almost exclusively found amongst Asian and African peoples. While Catholics and Protestants did indeed reject Mormon polygamy the court did not reference Protestant or Catholic views.

            Sinners are not sinning by getting married, nor is their marriage a violation of anyone’s conscience. By contrast homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a violation of conscience. If homosexual marriages must be catered to then it would be illegal to refuse a paedophile ordering a cake for a marriage to a child bride. As for second marriages, why would that be a problem? Paul instructed widows to remarry in the NT so second marriages are Biblical. If you’re talking remarriage after divorce then that gets fuzzier – Christians should not divorce but non-Christians have different views.

            I’m confused. You’ve moved the goalposts from whether an individual can be forced to support a particular message or act to demanding they serve individuals. The two things are distinctly different. In Colorado the state has supported bakers against Christians when they’ve deemed the requests offensive, and customers against Christian bakers who’ve deemed the requests offensive. That suggest Colorado considers Christians unworthy of support.

          • Concerned Christian

            This for me is the issue.

            1. By contrast homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a violation of conscience.
            2. If homosexual marriages must be catered to then it would be illegal to refuse a paedophile ordering a cake for a marriage to a child bride

            If Christian really believe this, I know a majority of evangelical Christians do, then there’s really no middle ground. To be honest, I’m not sure how homosexual marriage can be considered an oxymoron or how allowing homosexual marriages to be catered to equates to allowing a paedophile to order a cake for a child bride, however, this seems to be where conservative Christians stand.

            This being the case, if the goal is to protect Christianity, then you have a winning argument. However, if the goal is to promote Christianity, then this is a losing proposition.

          • Andrew Mason

            Yes Christians really do believe this, and no there’s really very little middle ground to be found. Being faithful to Christ means doing what He wants. If you want to consider being faithful a matter of protecting Christianity so be it, but I wouldn’t class it so myself. As for promoting Christianity, how is being faithful to Christ a losing proposition? Wouldn’t the reverse be true? Wouldn’t demonstrating that you are always prepared to compromise your faith the moment society, the government, or some other group or entity other than God demands it simply show that God isn’t important to you and thus should not be important to non-believers?

          • Concerned Christian

            When you’re attempting to protect something, you normally go on the defensive. You forget the reason for your own faith, you stop promoting the benefits of what your faith offers and you start tearing apart everything that your adversary stands for. Next thing you know you’re in the mud wrestling with your adversary with the difference being that your adversary will most likely like it.

            Paul said to the Jews I became a Jew and to the Greek, I became a Greek. You don’t compromise your faith by building bridges that allow you to share it.

            Sometimes you make the cake telling the person that I completely disagree with your behavior and I think it’s sinful. However, I love you and Jesus loves you. I would like to invite you to my church so that you can get a better understanding of the Gospel and why you need a Savior. If the person rejects it, you have still planted a seed that someone like an Apollos can water.

            Do you think that God gets more glory by you standing up for your faith or by promoting who He is?

          • Andrew Mason

            When you defend the Gospel you’re also on the defensive. Did Stephen forget the reason for his faith whilst in protective mode, or did he shine? Yes his accusers no doubt enjoyed stoning him, but I doubt that’s your point

            When Paul said I became a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks he didn’t mean he comprised Christ to adopt JewishGreek culture but rather he got on their wavelength and mingled with them.

            Do you? If making the cake is disobedience to God then what sort of witness are you offering? As for telling someone their behaviour is sinful, that Jesus loves them, and that they’re invited to your church, I don’t think that’s the right approach at all. Off the top of my head I don’t recall Jesus ever starting a conversation by accusing people of sinful behaviour – with the (possible) exception of the Pharisees who should have known better. Perhaps I’m overlooking something, and perhaps it’s largely my nature, but I tend to think that would merit a far more negative response than a simple ‘ sorry we don’t do that sort of product’.

            I think you’re seeing more difference than I do. Being faithful – a silent witness, does promote Him. By contrast a person who talks about God, but doesn’t live the life fails to promote Him.

          • Concerned Christian

            I guess this is our disagreement.

            “When you defend the Gospel you’re also on the defensive”

            We never look at defensive people in a positive light. The reality is that the more defensive a person is the more likely they’re defending the indefensible. Also, the more controlling that person will be. The more fear that person will walk in because any compromise calls into question the beliefs that they have.

            To me Stephen wasn’t defensive he was simply following 1 Peter 3:15:

            “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

            He was explaining the reason for his beliefs. The people that stoned him were defensive because he was calling their beliefs into question. They couldn’t implement 1 Peter 3:15 so they did the only thing that defensive, scared people do. Lash out hurt the source of that discomfort.

            My point is that of all the ways to handle this issue by the baker, he took the worst. Win or lose, Christians will be more on the defensive because of this ruling than anything that gays could have done directly to them.

    • Conr

      Your entire premise is off base. This is a free speech issue. I would suggest reading the case further

      • Concerned Christian

        you’re right. Now he’s trying to claim that he’s an artist and that the decision is not based on religion.

        You can call it free speech, religious liberty, etc. the fact remains that a business license is issued to serve the general public. Trying to hide behind the First Amendment as justification for discrimination is a tough sale.

        • Conr

          The issue comes down to who is more burdened by this discrimination. Who has more damages. Considering the gay couple could and did just go up the street to another bakery they will have a hard time arguing more harm was done to them.

          • Concerned Christian

            I think the couple should have done that. I wouldn’t want to eat anything from someone that didn’t want to make it for me.

            Having said that, the law doesn’t work that way. Anytime someone discriminates against another they put the burden on the other person period.

            I’m assuming that they like the cakes from the first baker better. So the burden is not getting the cake they liked because of discrimination.

  • Patmos

    The writing is pretty much already on the wall, regardless of what the court’s decision is. That’s not hopelessness, that just reality.

  • Tom Bor

    The baker can decide what kind of cake he’ll bake (no lewd or blasphemous cakes) but not to whom he will sell (because of who they are), i.e blacks, jews, or in this case gays.

    • Paul

      A homosexual ‘wedding’ is lewd and blasphemous, so who is going to request that cake other than homosexuals?

      • Tom Bor

        Literally lewd not figuratively (because of it purpose). He’s within his rights not to bake a penis shaped cake. He can’t refuse a regular cake to a mixed race couple because he doesn’t believe in race mixing, or because they’re gay. He’s not a church or religious organization. He’s baking a cake, not officiating at the ceremony.

        • SophieA

          The baker offered to bake this couple a cake. He just refused to use his artistic talent to create a unique work of art to bake a gay wedding cake. The couple refused. Does the artist own his talent or not? Why must Christians put up with “p-ss Christ” or a painting of Mary smeared with elephant feces just because some “artist” calls them his “art?” People of Christian faith own their artistic gifts like the secular artists. This case is about ownership of one’s artistic talents and the artist’s inalienable right to use his creative talents (that he owns) according to his conscience. I’d like to see a gay couple go to a bakery in Dearborn, MI and ask a Muslim baker to create a work of art wedding cake for their gay wedding. Don’t be so daft.

          • Tom Bor

            The baker offered them pre-made cookies or brownies off the shelf, not a custom wedding cake like he would normally make for clients.
            The baker uses his talents to make artistic cakes for sale and he need not be made to make a specific type of cake he finds offensive (lewd, Halloween etc), but he can’t discriminate who he serves based on who they are.

            I don’t like p*ss Christ either but people are free to express themselves in the art form of their choice. This baker is certainly free to express his views about gay marriage in cake form.

          • Conr

            “this baker is certainly free to express his views about gay marriage in cake form”

            EXACTLY, the other half of free speech is to NOT be compelled to make speech that one does not agree with… you must see this…

          • Tom Bor

            No. He can create a cake that expresses his feelings about gay marriage, but he cannot refuse serve he gives to the remainder of the general public.

          • Conr

            You’re focusing on the people being served, yet that is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who is being served it’s what the cake will be used for and what speech the baker is being compelled to agree with.

          • Tom Bor

            From the NYTimes:
            “Mr. Phillips makes a good case that he is an artist. So might many others who sell the fruits of their labor to those celebrating a wedding. But that doesn’t give any of them the right to refuse service to people protected under an anti-discrimination law. If the couple had asked Mr. Phillips to write a message on their cake endorsing same-sex marriage and he had been punished for refusing, he would have a more plausible First Amendment claim, since he wouldn’t write that for anyone. But Colorado’s law doesn’t compel Mr. Phillips, or any proprietor, to say anything they don’t want to say, or to endorse any specific message. It requires only that they treat all customers equally.”
            Mr. Phillips isn’t being forced to “say” anything just serve all people equally.

          • Conr

            Speech isn’t just the words coming out of your mouth or written by your hand. Speech is a message being conveyed. His cake at a gay wedding is conveying his support of the ceremony. The question at hand is whether the burden of Free Speech trumps the burden placed on the gay couple to have to go to a new cake shop.

        • Andrew Mason

          Except the courts have already ruled that offense is acceptable grounds for refusing an order. Consider the Bill Jack v Azucar Bakery case. The courts found that Christian requests can be refused if the baker deems them offensive. When Christian bakers refuse requests they deem offensive the courts have ruled against them. It’s a clear double standard.

          • Tom Bor

            The courts ruled that baker couldn’t be forced to make a cake that was literally offensive to him, ie a cake shaped like people having sex, or with writing saying something he found offensive, like “God is dead”. The Azucar Bakery was asked to use what they felt to be offensive imagery and wording on the cake do they refused.

            In the story above the baker wasn’t asked to make a cake with any specific imagery or wording that the baker objected to. He simply refused based on who the client was.

          • Andrew Mason

            No he refused to make an offensive cake. He was perfectly willing to sell other products to the clients in question so obviously they weren’t the problem.

          • Tom Bor

            No he refused to make a regular cake for a people and a function he disagreed with. You’re not understanding the difference .

            The baker offered them pre-made cookies or brownies off the shelf, not a custom wedding cake like he would normally make for clients.
            The baker uses his talents to make artistic cakes for sale and he need not be made to make a specific type of cake he finds offensive (lewd, Halloween etc), but he can’t discriminate who he serves based on who they are.

          • Andrew Mason

            No you’re not understanding the difference. He had no objection to making an ordinary cake for the people, he refused to make an offensive one. That contrasts with the Azucar Bakery that refused to countenance religious beliefs they found offensive. In both cases courts ruled against Christians.

          • Tom Bor

            If he makes custom wedding cakes he can’t refuse to make that same type of cake for someone based on who they are. It’s that simple.

          • Andrew Mason

            If you do decorated cakes you cannot refuse a customer simply because he’s ordered something with Biblical text and imagery. You still don’t see the double standard.

          • Conr

            It had nothing to do with who they are….

          • Conr

            And you just made the point your missing “the baker uses his talents to make artistic cakes”. Art is protected under free speech and can not be compelled. The plaintiff would need to somehow show that undue harm was done to them to over rule bakers objection.

          • Conr

            Incorrect, he refused based on what the cake was to be for… a very big difference.

        • Paul

          So in your world view who gets to decide what is lewd or not? How is a cake of a penis any different, it too is figurative as opposed to literal, it isn’t a real penis after all.

      • John Connor

        Your opinion only.

        • Jim Walker

          Go ask a Muslim butcher to sell you pork. I dare you.

          • John Connor

            Is pork something that he regularly sells like the baker sells wedding cakes?

          • Jim Walker

            Is a gay wedding cake something the baker makes regularly ?

        • Paul

          Well in your worldview who decides what is lewd or blasphemous?

    • Conr

      Again… this is a free speech issue not discrimination.

  • If you think that a business owner forfeits his beliefs when he opens his doors, PLEASE just come out and admit that you’re a fascist. Because one of the key points of Leftism (whether its fascism, socialism or communism) is State control of conscience and commerce. Oh, and you shouldn’t call yourself a liberal, because you CLEARLY hate freedom and liberty.

    • Tom Bor

      I love freedom and liberty, but that doesn’t mean I’m free to yell fire in a crowded theater, or refuse someone service because of their race or religion. You don’t have the right to kill someone or own a slave. There are limits on our “freedoms” already in place, like it or not.

      • I agree that there have to be limits on our freedoms so that we can all live amicably together in society. The traditional liberal position is that these limits come via private property rights, i.e. the owner of the theatre gets to decide what people can do in his building (including scream fire if there is no fire if he so agrees with his guests). Having the State enforce the destruction of freedom of conscience across the whole nation is utterly discriminatory against people of faith and is what you are supporting whilst you claim to love liberty.

        Discrimination must go both ways, and as it stands it does not. Saying that a Christian business owner cannot refuse to use his or her God given talents and property in the service of something he believes to be against God’s will is fascist, discriminatory and utterly illiberal. Rather than seek a compromise where both homosexuals and Christians can coexist peacefully in society, you are supporting the complete obliteration of freedom of conscience which is a fundamental human right specific to a certain group of society – people of faith. There needs to be a compromise here or else the result will be to marginalise Christians from society and effectively ban them from earning a living.

        • Tom Bor

          Seriously Christian,
          It’s not the theater owner who gets’ to decide, it is a general public safety issue, irrespective of who owns the theater. I could be prosecuted even if the theater owner agreed with me shouting fire.

          You can not refuse service to people because of their race or religion – even if you think it goes against your religious beliefs. Similarly you’re not allowed to kill someone because you think your religious beliefs allow it. Your religious beliefs don’t trump the Constitution.

          • Hahaha. You presume that public accommodation laws are constitutional…they’re NOT.

          • Tom Bor

            Equal Protection Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

          • That means that GOVERNMENT cannot discriminate.

          • Jackie

            Question, are you advocating that Christians go to a gay bakery owner and DEMAND that they make a cake that says “Homosexuality is immoral” and if the gay owner refuses, they can sue? That’s the same thing you are advocating here.

          • Tom Bor

            Are you saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (in part derived from the Equal Protection Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) and all subsequent amendments are unconstitutional?

          • Yes, the government has NO authority to regulate interpersonal actions.

          • Tom Bor

            So you free to assault or kill the next person you disagree with?
            I think the government would try to regulate that interaction.

          • No, THAT is violating someone’s private property rights, which is a crime. Your FEELINGS aren’t rights. Get over yourself and go find someone who WILL celebrate your mirage…

      • You say that I don’t have the right to own a slave, then turn right around and espouse slavery for the business owner. A free man owns himself, his conscience and his property. He is free to do whatever he wants WITH his property unless he violates the private property rights of another person…and you do NOT have a right to my presence, my services, my talents, or my presence.

        • Tom Bor

          Mike, I’m not espousing slavery, just adherence to the rights of all persons under the Constitution.

          • GOVERNMENT can’t discriminate. But government has neither authority nor responsibility to prevent any citizen from doing so.

          • Tom Bor

            You’re wrong, citizens are protected from discrimination by the Equal Protection Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

          • No, they’re not. You’re totally wrong. You’re espousing slavery. In your view, government OWNS everyone and has the authority to control how they act. You’re espousing totalitarianism.

          • Tom Bor

            MIke, The Law protects people from discrimination. You may not agree with that, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

            Asking people to refrain from discriminating against each other is light years from “totalitarianism”. Not discriminating against another person is really an extension of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not really radical (not anymore, anyway).

          • Putting a gun to a man’s head and saying “Violate your conscience or we’ll take your property and lock you up” is the definition of totalitarian. At LEAST have the guts to own your thuggery

          • Tom Bor

            Sorry you see it that way. SCOTUS obviously sees it differently.

          • SCOTUS also thinks it’s okay to murder the unborn, and that two people of the same sex can be married. They’re irrelevant to morality.

          • Tom Bor

            Thankfully we live in a beautifully designed democracy, with separate branches of government and checks and balances, etc.

            And SCOTUS seems in step with most other democratic countries around the world with respect to same sex marriage and abortion.

            Luckily we don’t live under your moral theocracy.

          • My moral theocracy…bwahahaa. That’s rich. I’m a Biblical Libertist. You’re free to do WHATEVER you want with your private property. If two men want to live together, they absolutely can…but I’m under no compunction to recognize or condone their sin. I’d roll the government back to the Constitution, and 90% of government would cease to exist.

          • Tom Bor

            Great, but in this country, if you serve the public you serve everyone without discriminating. Or find another way to make a living.

          • THERE it is, ladies and gentlemen…the totalitarian speaks out. Do things in accordance with MY beliefs, or starve. You sir, are a thug. An evil, petty, religious zealot bent on forcing your morality on those around you.

          • Andrew Mason

            Except if you extend that position a little further you’ve just ruled that Christians may neither hold employment or own businesses.

          • Tom Bor

            Of course they can. They just can’t discriminate.

          • Andrew Mason

            If you refuse to permit Christians to be Christian then you’re discriminating against them. At the same time that you refuse Christians the right to refuse orders you’re defending the right of others to refuse to serve Christians. Double standards much? The Azucar bakery was asked to provide a Bible styled cake with verses and simple imagery supporting those verses. The courts ruled it was permissible to refuse a Christian order if it was considered offensive. By contrast Masterpiece was asked to supply a cake celebrating an abomination. Naturally Phillips refused the order, and not because of who was requesting it – he was happy to sell them any pre-made product. Service wasn’t sufficient for the duo who walked in, they demanded submission. If the courts support equality SCOTUS will support Masterpiece Cakes. Any other decision enshrines inequality and discrimination in the law.

      • Conr

        You’re looking at the argument only from the surface. This has never been about discrimination, it is a free speech issue.

    • John Connor

      They forfeit the right to discriminate.

      • No, they don’t. Or you support slavery. Choose.

        • John Connor

          I don’t have to choose anything. Baking cakes doesn’t endorse the celebration. He broke public accommodation laws.

          • Public Slavery laws are unconstitutional and morally offensive.

          • Conr

            Case law on this issue protects many art forms, it is not a stretch for cake decorating to be added to the list. If the couple came in and bought a generic cake off the shelf as they have done for years and used it at their wedding that is totally different, than having the owner design a special cake for their wedding.

          • disqus

            You would be okay if forced to put your business name at a KKK rally then? Its also freedom of association.

      • Conr

        This isn’t discrimination, it is a free speech issue. The baker clearly has not discriminated against the gay couple and has served them for years prior.

    • Spot on, well said!

    • Concerned Christian

      Yes, that’s exactly what a business owner does. First of all, try to operate a business in a state without getting a license. You CANNOT sale cakes in a bakery in the state of CO without a business license. Call it fascism, socialism, or communism or whatever you want but that will not change. You also can’t do it without being subject to a background check and health inspection.

      The license you receive allows you to sale products to the PUBLIC. It is subject to being revoked if you fail inspection, commit a felony or fail to pay your taxes.

      So if you feel that a business will violate your beliefs, then you probably don’t want to be a business owner. Especially, if you feel that Public means something other than the Public.

      • Conr

        You are missing the point of the Supreme Court Case argument, this has little to do with it being a public business or discrimination. It is a ‘compelled speech’ issue. Owning a business does not forfeit your right to free speech or to be compelled to promote others speech.

        • Concerned Christian

          The laws being used against this man were put into place because that exact logic was used to deny services to blacks and women.

          Rand Paul, laments to this day, that private business was compelled to comply with anti-discrimination laws.

          The courts thus far haven’t agreed with either.

          • Conr

            This is a big misconception over the issue. There is no discrimination occurring. The baker is not discriminating against the gay couple at all. If he were he would have never sold any products to them to begin with (they were regular customers). He is simply not willing to be compelled to participate in a symbolic ceremony that he disagrees with. If they bought a generic wedding cake off the shelf and didn’t request him to use his artistic abilities then there would be no debate.

          • Concerned Christian

            what’s the difference between that and a cake for an interracial couple?

          • disqus

            There is only one race, the human race.

          • Benny Ehud

            Who makes the wedding cakes that are on the shelf?

          • Conr

            The key point is they are not custom.

        • Benny Ehud

          You are missing the point. I think homosexuality is a sin. Let’s get that out of the way. However, you can’t decide that you aren’t going to sell a cake to someone b/c they say they are homosexuals. This opens up a can of worms for everybody. If that’s the case, why sell to Jews, Muslims, etc.? And that’s not a rhetorical question.

          • Conr

            It’s not about who they are selling to its what the product will be used for. He also doesn’t sell custom cakes for Halloween parties. The gay couple wanting to buy from him are regular customers for years buying normal goods from his store, I believe he even had a gay employee. He’s refusing to participate in a gay wedding not refusing to sell to gay people.

          • Benny Ehud

            He’s not participating in a gay wedding. He’s make a cake. What the guys decide to use the cake for is their business. They aren’t harming anyone else.

          • Conr

            Because it is custom it is certainly the bakers business. There is a long standing precedent protecting the tie between business owners and their moral/religious views influencing how they do business.

          • Benny Ehud

            That’s the problem. Moral/religious beliefs differ from person to person.

            Are you OK with a person saying that I don’t want to service an interracial wedding? What about a wedding between divorced people? What about a wedding between a skinny person and a fat person? A person can come up with any moral/religious belief that they want.

          • disqus

            Why is that a problem?

          • Benny Ehud

            I answered this question in the comment lol

          • Conr

            It’s not about who they are selling to its what the product will be used for. He also doesn’t sell custom cakes for Halloween parties. The gay couple wanting to buy from him are regular customers for years buying normal goods from his store, I believe he even had a gay employee. He’s refusing to participate in a gay wedding not refusing to sell to gay people.

          • Benny Ehud

            I already know this. The issue is does he make specific cakes for heterosexual weddings? If he does, then that’s a problem. If he doesn’t make Halloween cakes for anyone, then that’s OK. But if he makes them for certain groups and not others, then that’s a problem. So, if this guy makes individual cakes for people, then he has to make an individual cake for them. It doesn’t matter what they choose to use the cake for. That’s on them. His only responsibility is to make the cake.

          • Conr

            It isn’t a problem because his religious beliefs don’t conflict with heterosexual weddings. The standard your setting is a dangerous precedent. You are now precluding all Christians from owning businesses that have anything to do with weddings. We dealt with similar issues with Catholic hospitals being forced to provide abortion. Or a business required to provide birth control. There is no harm done to the gay couple aside from offense. Go to another bakery, problem solved. The supreme court has a long history of not allowing ‘offense’ trample religious rights.

          • Benny Ehud

            Your religious beliefs don’t get to dictate person discriminating against certain groups.

          • Conr

            They did for Catholic hospitals and Hobby Lobby who would be ‘discriminating’ against woman

          • Benny Ehud

            Birth Control isn’t giving to any one in those organizations.

          • Benny Ehud

            Do you think pornography should be legally banned from being sold in the U.S.? If so, why don’t you all advocate against it like you all do gay marriage and abortion? This is not a “gotcha” moment. I am really curious. I have always wonder why Republicans don’t go after the porn industry.

          • disqus

            Because you either support free speech or you don’t. Religious freedom requires free speech.

          • Benny Ehud

            Free speech doesn’t allow discrimination (in public) for individuals based on certain tenets. That’s what you are missing.

          • Conr

            Before I respond, I want to clarify that I would not consider myself a republican as I tend to fall more in the area of conservative libertarian. So I do not know that my answer would necessarily totally satisfy you’re question regarding republicans. With that said, I am not sure why Republicans don’t go after the porn industry, I would assume that they feel it would be very unpopular and therefore ‘bigger’ issues prevail.

            My opinion is two fold, I believe in a free market and if there is demand than someone should have the opportunity to meet that demand, within reason of course. On a personal and moral level I think porn is incredibly destructive and want no part in it. It degrades woman and chips away at the family. Despite this, I would only consider going after it if it became an issue of public safety. It is only a symptom of bigger issues.

          • Benny Ehud

            So, porn degrades women and chips away at the family, but it isn’t a public safety issue?
            An abortion falls under a woman doing what she wants to do with body. No, I don’t wish to debate it further.

            However, I do want to ask you all about Israel. The nation of Israel is more liberal than the U.S. Yet, Republicans seem to love Israel but hate liberals in the U.S. lol I don’t get that.

          • Conr

            Regarding your statement about porn. Can you quantify the harm it does to the public? Unless you talk about specific examples of woman getting taken advantage of I can not. Abortion on the other hand…

            Regarding Israel, America takes care of its friends. Besides, there are many other countries we are allied with that hold vastly different political views. Internal US politics are our primary concern, the policies of foreign governments is just not anywhere near the top of the list.

            Why are you asking these questions if you don’t want to discuss them?

          • Benny Ehud

            I am not talking about the U.S. supporting Israel. I am talking about Republicans and evangelical Christians supporting Israel. Christians LOVE Israel but hate Liberals in the U.S, while Israel is more liberal than the U.S. Why not SUPPORT Liberals in the U.S.? The Israeli people are far, far more aligned with Democrats than they are with Republicans, specifically on social and economic issues.

            I wasn’t asking questions about abortions. I have already had those conversations.

          • Conr

            Republicans love for Israel is not based on comparing their political views. America’s (including republicans) relationship with Israel is based on much broader geo political issues. We can’t chose our global friends totally based on their position of social issues. If we did we would have no friends.

          • Benny Ehud

            FORGET THE REPUBLICANS! I am talking about the praise heaped on Israel by Evangelical Christians. It’s not just about geopolitics with Evangelicals. They PRAISE Israel. Watch a Christian network and how they praise Israel. Yet, Israel is far more liberal than America.

            I know that evangelicals believe Jews are the Chosen people. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the Israel acts FAAAARRRR more like Liberals than they act like Conservatives. But evangelicals ridicule liberals in America but praise them in Israel. I am fascinated by that. It’s hypocritical.

          • Conr

            I’m sorry Benny I can’t relate to your questions, I don’t watch christian networks or know anyone who simply praises Israel because it is. Maybe someone else here will have an answer for you. I suspect those who talk about Israel all the time are televangelists in certain movements. Televangelists are poor representatives of Christianity.

          • Benny Ehud

            lol OK. That’s who I was referring to. Televangelists PRAISE Israel. They PRAISE them relentlessly. Yet, the Israeli nation as a whole acts like Liberals and Democrats. But televangelists criticize Liberals and Democrats almost daily. Even Bret Stephens said that Israel was basically a Liberal country, and he said he voted Republican his entire life up until the last election.

          • Conr

            I wish, I could share insight but I don’t have any. No experience there.. sorry

          • Benny Ehud

            Michael L. Brown is one them.

          • Conr

            Noted, I’ll keep an eye out for it

          • Benny Ehud

            What if all bakeries in a 200 mile radius decided to not serve the gay couple? Is harm done then?

          • Conr

            That’s a good question which I am sure the supreme court will consider.

          • Benny Ehud

            But you are saying that that is OK if it is true.

    • Irene Neuner

      Well said. The interesting thing is that facism always turns around and bites it’s supporters.

  • Dant e

    Hopefully it won`t go the way of Britain where an Irish baker was punished and found guilty of discrimination for the same reasons. They had served and employed homosexuals but refused to make cakes for homosexual weddings against their deeply held beliefs. I seem to remember a florist had the same treatment and a B&B owning couple were also found guilty and lost their entire livelyhood.

    • Tom Bor

      Would you feel differently if these businesses refused services to blacks or jews? Even if they were nice enough to employ some of them.

      • Andrew Mason

        You don’t choose to be Black or Jewish.

        • Tom Bor

          Or gay

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually you do – homosexuality is a choice.

          • Concerned Christian

            That’s subject to debate.

            However, there is no argument that you choose to become a Christian!

          • Dant e

            Many Calvinists would disagree with you about that.

          • Concerned Christian

            Are you a Calvinists?

          • Dant e

            Im not sure.

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually there is debate over that. You can be born into a Christian family, raised Christian, and continue to think Christian. There’s also the matter of religious orientation.

          • Concerned Christian

            That’s really my point, conservative Christians don’t believe that a person is born gay.

            However, the majority of conservative Christians believe that you must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior in order to be a Christian. Therefore, they don’t believe that a person is born Christian.

            There’s still a debate as to whether a person is born straight or gay. However, there is no doubt amongst the majority of conservative Christians that a decision has to be made in order to be a Christian.

            This of course excludes Calvinist.

          • Andrew Mason

            More I’d say Christians argue that people are not born homosexual, and it really doesn’t matter. Are you born a murderer, a thief, or a child molester? Does being born that way mean you have the right to act that way or is any wrong choice always a wrong choice?

            Oh absolutely, though it depends on how you’re defining Christian. If meaning a person God deems to be following Him – Bible Believing or whatever term you prefer, then true you are not born following Christ. That being said there are still issues that can be argued. All humans are born with a God shaped void in their heart, with people being more or less inclined to embrace God, having a nature that is more or less similar to Christ’s and with ongoing debate over predestination, the role God plays in salvation, and other such things.

            There is debate amongst the scientific community over the nature of homosexuality yes, and yes the majority of Christians agree that a decision must be made to be Christian. Whether a person is fully responsible for that decision can be debated.

            Are you saying Calvinists aren’t (conservative) Christians?

          • Conr

            The problem with the ‘person’ having any responsibility over their salvation in Christ is it conflicts with God’s omniscience.

            It is clear we all are predisposed towards particular sin based on personality and environment. Yet the bible makes it clear, we all chose to sin.

          • Concerned Christian

            I agree with you that it doesn’t matter how you born, since we’re all born as sinners.

            Also, I don’t think conservative Christians are Calvinists, but I think what underlines their views on sin is Calvinists. You see it in the lack of compassion that a person is some dirty low down sinner who deserves hell, as opposed to being just a sinner. A person, that has struggled developing a relationship with God.

            I remember going to a city with my wife and we went to a mall. All we saw were men. My wife said, I think these men are gay. I couldn’t believe it because they were all professional alpha males. Sure enough it was some type of convention. I can’t explain why there would be an attraction other than to say it’s part of our sin nature.

            But I do know that they are Americans and that they deserve the same rights as we all have. That includes Christian reaching out in love and not condemnation. Not seeing everything that they’re doing as some evil attempt to undermine Christianity but as an attempt to simply be happy!

          • Conr

            While unrelated, I would strongly challenge your assumption “there is no doubt amongst the majority of conservative Christians that a decision has to be made in order to be a Christian.”

            How do you define this majority? Are there statistics that back up these numbers? I would argue strongly in the opposite because I have no statistics either, they don’t exist. It is simply your experience. I would argue there is a strong reformation movement in the American Church which would indicate the majority in fact believe that a Christian can not possibly make that decision because we are totally depraved. Calvinism is much more main stream than many realize, its just called the more accurate term, Reformed.

          • Concerned Christian

            When it comes to compassion for sinners I would agree that most people have Calvinist views. It’s like Christians believe sinners are concerned with undermining them as opposed to simply being happy.

            The Prodigal son is one of the most important parables in the Bible to me. One son went away and lived a life of sin but understood who he was and went back home. The other brother was mad, my perception of Calvinist, because he couldn’t understand why the father not only took him back but celebrated the fact that he had came back.

            What’s obvious is that neither brother understood the father. To me so many Christians are like the brother that stayed home. They compare themselves to sinners missing out on what the Father has for them.

          • Conr

            If I might ask, what do you see in people that gives you this view of the world? Are you referencing your church? Or popular christian figures? I ask because the brothers and sisters I am around are just grateful to be recipients of the grace of God. I don’t feel their is this overwhelming hatred for the lost. However there is overwhelming hatred of sin… and that is biblical.

          • Concerned Christian

            When all you do is accept God’s grace, you become like the brother of the Prodigal son. You never look at the blessings right in your face. You’re consumed with looking at sinners, since, you’re doing all the right things and they’re not.

            Then you start trying to protect yourself from sinners, rationalizing that it’s not fear but simply reflecting the fact that God hates sin. God may hate sin but He loves people.

            I personally don’t know anyone that got saved because they were a sinner. They got saved because, like the Prodigal son, they realized that it was better in their Father’s house. Then they realized that sin was an impediment to their relationship with God. This is the message that is not being reflected by Christians.

          • Tom Bor

            Right and the earth is flat. And 6000 years old.

          • Andrew Mason

            Unless science has changed its mind again I’m pretty sure the Earth isn’t flat.

            Anyone can claim anything, it doesn’t make it true, nor does it make it relevant.

            People can choose Judaism as their religion yes but they cannot choose to be Jewish by race. You are either born Jewish or you’re not.

          • Tom Bor

            The point is you can’t discriminate against people even if you think they chose their religion or orientation.

          • Andrew Mason

            The point is courts have made a distinction.

          • Conr

            It is not discrimination, it is a refusal by the owner to be compelled to speech. Your approach is wrong to the argument.

      • Dant e

        No, if the blacks or Jews wanted the baker to make cakes for homosexual weddings i would feel the same, if they refused to make cakes for anyone based on their skin colour, religion or sexuality then i would disagree with them.

      • Conr

        Your argument is not accurate to the case at hand. I would recommend reviewing the case again.

    • Andrew Mason

      Actually the Ashers Bakery case is advancing to the Supreme Court which will sit in Northern Ireland for the first time ever. The issue wasn’t a homosexual wedding cake, but a cake with text saying ‘Support Gay Marriage’. Homosexual marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland so the cake was demanding support for something not legal. Despite this, and rights such as freedom of conscience, courts have ruled that refusing the cake counts as discrimination against homosexuals which is illegal, that in effect there is no freedom of conscience. Even supporters of homosexual rights have been dismayed at the implications of the ruling to date.

      • Dant e

        Yes Andrew apologies for that, in that case it is even more egregious. I remember Peter Tatchell commenting on his disagreement with the decision, it really does say something about the priority placed upon the rights of homosexuals over and above others just as Dr.Brown stated in the article.

    • Conr

      Fortunately for Americans free speech and free expression is protected

      • Dant e

        Yes you definitely have more protection of freedoms in the US, we do have free speech and expression protections but some rights have recently become more important than others, meaning that LGBT groups have appropriated law protections they were unintended for when the protections were formed. Isnt this the way the cases in the US were won and the reason they now stand before the SC?

        • Conr

          I honestly think most of that was related to the judges in those courts. All the current cases being reviewed are under very liberal courts if I’m not mistaken. I think more moderate courts will see this case differently. The argument as you mention really just rests on who’s rights are being more ‘violated’. And in that respect the baker has a much stronger claim, as the gay couple needs to be able to prove ‘harm done’ which is difficult and I would argue there is little to none. They could simply take their business elsewhere, this baker doesn’t have a monopoly on wedding cakes. Hopefully the supreme court sees it that way.

          The florist case you mentioned, She lost in the Washington State supreme court but I believe they asked the Supreme Court for a hearing and are waiting review, which will likely be lumped in with the bakers case.

          • Dant e

            Praying Gods will is done and also that Britain come to its senses as well.

          • Conr

            Amen

  • Andrew Mason

    The Ashers Bakery case should provide a useful guideline as to how things may eventuate. As Peter Tatchell, a Far Left homosexual campaigner and columnist noted, by insisting that all lawful messages be provided there is no grounds for conscientious objection – a Jewish businessman must support Holocaust denial, Muslims must support mockery of Muhammad, and homosexuals must support homophobic orders. At the same time courts have ruled that offensive messages may be refused. In Bill Jack v Azucar Bakery the courts ruled that Bible verses are legitimate grounds for refusal, with the ACLU claiming that there is no law that requires cake makers to write obscenities simply because a customer wants them to. The question is, who defines obscenity? Homosexuality is an obscenity, Scripture is not, and yet increasingly courts are taking the opposite view.

  • Jeremy L

    The analogies at the beginning are all fallacious.

    “Should a gay baker be required by law to design a cake/Should an African American t-shirt maker be required…” No one is required by law to DESIGN anything. This is about whether or not all people should be able to get all products a business sells. Yes, a gay baker would indeed have to sell cake to someone who hates gays.What the person who hates gays uses that cake for is his business. The baker is not compelled to write ANY messages on the cake, but the customer has a right to buy a cake and write whatever messages/designs he wants on it. If you walk into a store, you should be able to buy ANYTHING off the shelves. What you do with the product you buy is not the seller’s concern. Was Jack forced to put a two-groom topper on the cake? No. Was he forced to write “I love same-sex marriage” on any cake? No. Can Jack body slam me to the ground and pry the cupcakes I just bought from him out of my hands if he overhears me mentioning I’m taking them to a Halloween party? Where does it end? I disagree with the whole of Islam (something you all can relate to). But I’m not going to refuse to sell Muslims things they may use for Muslim holidays. Because it wouldn’t at all be an endorsement.

    “Should a Muslim caterer be required to provide pork for a secular event?” A Muslim caterer wouldn’t be selling pork to begin with. Can I go to Burger King and demand a Big Mac? No. “Should a Jewish photographer be forced to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath?” They wouldn’t have their services available on the Sabbath anyway. Can I go to an empty Chick fil A on Sunday and scream at it to be open?

    “Why, then, are gays and lesbians treated differently? Why are they put in a special category?” Because they are a minority. If the Supreme Court sides with Jack, gays and lesbians will be hurt, but you guys, not so much. Scores of Christians will be able to refuse gays and lesbians. And even if gays and lesbians will be allowed to refuse Christians, do you really think that will pose a significant problem to Christians, who vastly outnumber gays and lesbians? And will this stop at cake? Should a Christian landlord be able to refuse housing to a gay couple and let them languish in the streets? Should a Christian doctor be able to refuse to save a gay person’s life? Where does it end?

    • Conr

      You’re argument generalizes thereby missing the key points of the argument. I would recommend reviewing the case in more detail.

    • Irene Neuner

      1. Being a minority doesn’t mean your oppressed and doesn’t entitle you to any special rights.
      2. Not serving a homosexual couple doesn’t mean a person hates homosexuals. I think everyone knows that.

      The truth is that homosexuality is repulsive on a natural level and an abomination on a spiritual level and homosexuals want to change those natural and supernatural or spiritual truths to justify their behavior.

      To clarify Evangelical Christians and people who are still real (not politically correct) don’t have a problem with homosexual people it’s the behavior that is the problem. To clarify further we would never deny homosexuals of kindness and all decencies but we don’t want to do things that vindicate the behavior.

      Of course if your a homosexual you don’t care about us and our beliefs because your morality is equivalent to a child’s. Completely selfish.

      • Jeremy L

        1. Except they ARE oppressed. And since when is going to a store and being able to buy things a “special right”? Like I said, it is not the seller’s business what you use the product for. You should be able to get it. Way to ignore my argument.
        2. When did I even say that not serving a homosexual couple means a person hates homosexuals? I’m actually giving Jack the benefit of the doubt. But his hatred or lack thereof doesn’t have any bearing on whether a person, regardless of identity or interests, should be able to buy everything a store sells. Jack can hate whomever he wants so long as he treats all people equally.

        “The truth is that homosexuality is repulsive on a natural level and an abomination on a spiritual level” The actual truth is this is your opinion. Opinions aren’t facts. And only facts matter.

        “To clarify Evangelical Christians and people who are still real (not politically correct) don’t have a problem with homosexual people it’s the behavior that is the problem.” You can’t separate a person from their sexuality. I don’t have a problem with you, Irene. It’s just the fact that you think men are sexy and have sex with a man that bothers me. How’s that? That okay? And no, accepting a gay couple’s consensual and committed relationship doesn’t make you “unreal” or politically correct, it makes you a decent human being.

        “To clarify further we would never deny homosexuals of kindness and all decencies.” Maybe you personally wouldn’t, but you can’t speak for everyone. You aren’t grasping the ramifications of Jack winning. People might be able to deny gays access to not just wedding items, but basic accommodations and necessities.

        “Of course if your a homosexual you don’t care about us and our beliefs because your morality is equivalent to a child’s. Completely selfish.” Your beliefs don’t deserve respect. Christians are hypocrites who want to use Bible verses to attack people they personally don’t like while conveniently ignoring Bible verses that might implicate themselves. And what’s really childish is getting all hot and bothered about something so trivial as the sex lives/love lives of consenting adults to the point where you can’t even see their humanity and individuality. There is nothing more selfish than holding prejudice against others and refusing to associate with them for stupid, petty reasons. That defines your crowd to a T.

        • Irene Neuner

          The baker was happy to sell his cakes to the gay couple her just didn’t want to design a gay cake, most likely with two toy men in tuxes on it.

        • Irene Neuner

          You can distinguish (separate) a person from their behavior including sexual behavior. You can love the sinner and hate the sin. I do that everyday with my five children. They do aweful things and (after disciplining them) I still love them to the extent that I would give my life for any of them in an instant and daily sacrifice my desires for theirs.

          It’s not easy to do with people(compulsive and/or repulsive sinners) who are fully grown, it’s a skill, but it can be done. I generally appreciate the fine tastes and impeccable work of the ‘gay’ community but I think their private lives are completely disgusting.

          I have done disgusting and dispicable things in my private life but I recognize it for what it is, would never attempt to normalize or justify it, and don’t make a habit of it.

          In the real world there is right and wrong, good and evil, and a God from whom all blessing flow (including morality.). Nonetheless gays don’t need to be concerned with Christians, it is Muslims they should be concerned with.

          • Jeremy L

            Their relationships are not simply “sexual behavior” anymore than your marriage is simply “sexual behavior”. Ever considered that these gay couples are, oh, I don’t know, actually in love with each other? Being in love with another human being is not “disgusting and despicable”.

          • Irene Neuner

            I am sure they love each other but only a man and woman make a marriage and love doesn’t nor does it ever justify anything a person feels like doing. Some things are wrong.

        • Irene Neuner

          70% of new HIV infections plus an increased rate of rectal cancer offers clues to the fact that homosexual sex is unnatural. I don’t want to spell it out any further such as certain organs are clearly designed for certain things.

          Men should love each other, women should love each other but only a man and woman should marry, have a sexual relationship, and children.

          Those who don’t have those natural desires should obstane from unnatural ones.

          • Jeremy L

            ALL sex comes with risks. And though all sex comes with risk, you can reduce the risks of all sex with monogamy and safe sex practices, including any sort of sex gay men might have. And you do know that the “unnatural” lesbians have the lowest rate of STDs of all groups, right? Have your opinions all you want, but it’s not up to you who should be able to express their sexuality and who shouldn’t. And above all, it isn’t fair to disparage a loving gay couple over something so small in their overall relationship as their sex life. Personally, a couple’s sex life is the last thing I consider when asking myself if they should be together.

      • Benny Ehud

        You can’t refuse to serve certain people based off of sexuality. I think homosexuality is wrong. But one can’t decide who they are going to sell when it comes to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

        • Irene Neuner

          Why can’t I refuse to work for someone who is homosexual or anything else?

          I know that there are discrimination laws but they are not right. They are immoral.

          • Benny Ehud

            The practical answer is that discriminating against one group will lead to discrimination against another group. Walmart can’t decide that they are going to sell to East Asians while not selling to Indians. You can’t do that. That will throw society into disarray. Discrimination laws are absolutely right to have, even if there are some groups you and I disagree with. What you don’t understand is that people can decide not to sell to Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, short people, tall people, skinny people, fat people, etc. This is a legitimate issue.

            There are people who believe that two different races shouldn’t marry. And that based that off of the Bible. Should they be allowed to discriminate against an interracial couple based off of their own religious beliefs? And this is serious. My mother’s boss, who was a white female in the south, said that she didn’t think that blacks and whites should marry and was wrong to do so. She believed this b/c she was taught this by her pastor, a “Christian” pastor. See, you may not go that far. But there are other people who will.

          • Irene Neuner

            Benny,

            First, let’s get specific about the cakemaker. He had no problem selling to gays he had a problem working for gays. They wanted him to bake and design a custom cake for their gay wedding.

            Second if any free citizen doesn’t want to work, serve, or sell to another person the free citizen should have the right to do that. There are other cake makers, photographers out there that WILL work for, serve or sell to gays or any other person who suffers discrimination.

            This case isn’t about protecting minorities it’s about punishing people who hold beliefs that offend you. The men with the gay wedding do not have the right to force the cake maker or photographer to work for them. They shouldn’t be allowed to sue either.

          • Benny Ehud

            Do you think it’s OK for a business to say we don’t serve Blacks and biracial (mixed white/black kids) b/c it’s against the religion of the business owner?

            You need to understand that this case isn’t just about the cake maker. It’s about whether a business is allowed to discriminate against ANY PARTICULAR group of people while offering the same service to other groups of people. Why can he not design a cake for their wedding? That isn’t a sin. He is selling a cake to a customer. He’s not selling pornography. And he’s not agreeing with what they do. I’ve sat down and discussed financial options with unmarried couples who told me they had no plans of getting married. Did I sin by doing that? I don’t think so.

            Furthermore, if you have a business in the U.S., you should not be able to not sell or serve any person based off of their race, religion, sex, geographical birth/location, sexual orientation. You are focusing too much on HOMOSEXUALITY. There are other reasons why others would discriminate against people based off that person’s religious beliefs. Under your belief system, ANY RACIAL group could be denied the right to use the restroom at restaurant or feel up for gas in the middle of nowhere. That’s not how a society should be run.

            This case is about protecting everyone’s right to equal service. It would be different if they asked the cake maker to make a lewd cake when he doesn’t make lewd cakes anybody. I know cake makers who don’t do that for anybody. He specifically denied them a service that he provides solely b/c he disagreed with their way of life.

            Also, I think you should be allowed to sue for anything. Now, I also believe that numerous lawsuits should just be thrown out.

          • Irene Neuner

            Discrimination is a problem when it comes from the government and the law and the guns and the punishment is enforcing it. There is nothing wrong with discrimination as a free employer, worker or any citizen. In fact it is essential to discriminate who is speaking the truth or lying, who is safe or dangerous etc.

            Homosexuality and gay marriage is pornographic and abominable to evangelicals who actually have a moral base and others who’s consciences have not been seered and who’s sensibilities have not been desensitized.

          • Benny Ehud

            “There is nothing wrong with discrimination as a free employer.” Are you crazy? Do you understand where that leads?

            Again, do you think it’s OK for a business to deny blacks and Jews service solely b/c they are black or a Jew? Serious question.

            Homosexuality isn’t pornography. But engaging in homosexual acts is a sin.

    • disqus

      1. You don’t waive your 1st amendment right to exercise your faith in your daily life by opening a business. 2. You don’t have a right to someone else’s private property. Gays benefit equally under these same principles. Making laws for preferred classes is immoral and discriminatory. You make laws for the common good, not the individual, that would be chaos.

      • Jeremy L

        Gays would not benefit equally. It wouldn’t be a two-way street at all. Yes, gays could, in theory, kick people out of their shops based on the principles you mention. But you really think that would go off without a hitch given that gays are a helpless, stigmatized minority? If a gay man refused to bake a cake for a Christian wedding, you don’t think there would be an uproar he couldn’t possibly contend with? Not to mention that religion gets federal protection per the Civil Right Act. Barring the fact that Jack would serve gay people any other cake, let’s ask the question of whether or not believers in same-sex marriage, regardless of sexual orientation, should be a protected class. Jack’s representatives and supporters argue that pro-gay marriage beliefs should not be protected in the same way as anti-gay marriage beliefs, since anti-gay marriage beliefs are rolled up in “religion.” They say “religion” can only include anti-gay marriage beliefs (which flies in the face of the First Amendment, by the way, which deliberately does not define what is “acceptable” religion). So, Christians essentially want their beliefs favored over others. Did you not say you disapprove of laws that prefer certain classes? If Christians don’t want to be hypocrites, they should argue for there to be no protected classes at all. But I can’t see Christians accepting the anti-Christian discrimination they’d inevitably encounter, considering how often they cry, “Religious liberty!!” They want to be able to step on others without being stepped on themselves.

        • disqus

          Religious liberty is not a class of people its right for all to exercise. These lawsuits are petty, as your arguments, and meant to punish those who wish to abstain from commerce out of conscious objection, unless they’re on the “protected class” list. If your argument requires boarding a 747 to draw a line to discrimination, its probably not discrimination.

        • disqus

          Religious liberty is not a class of people its right for all to exercise. You’re fear-mongering dreaming up more non-tragedies that haven’t happened yet. These lawsuits are petty, and meant to punish those who wish to abstain from commerce out of conscious objection–something everyone should be able to do. If your argument requires boarding a 747 to draw a line to discrimination, its probably not discrimination.

    • Bryan

      If you look into the case, he offered them something from his shelves, anything that was pre-made from his shop. In this case the baker is being required by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to design and create a custom cake for the couple that requested it or face fines. The analogies fit, even if they seem somewhat unlikely.
      What every person who I’ve seen that thinks the baker (or florist, etc.) is in the wrong seems to think that the baker is refusing service to the individuals. That’s absolutely not true. As an aside, if a Christian tried to use the court ruling (if it’s favorable) to discriminate against gay individuals, that would, as it has been for a while, be a crime. In each case and specifically in the baker case, they have had a relationship with the individuals sometimes for years. The only time anything is refused is about a specific event not the sexual orientation of the individuals.

      • Jeremy L

        “They wanted a custom cake” is problematic for a few reasons. They didn’t want a “gay cake” or an “anti-Christian” cake or even a “pro-gay marriage” cake. They didn’t want a cake with any messages at all. The question now becomes is selling someone a custom-made, fancy cake equivalent to endorsing the event it’s going to? Furthermore, regarding the pre-made items he offered, would he not sell them to the couple if he learned they would use them as the centerpiece of the spread at their reception? Probably not, if we’re being honest. People like Jack don’t want to be involved in a gay wedding in any way, correct? But, the thing is, Jack’s misguided in thinking providing food sends some sort of message. He claims his cake is “art”. Fine. But, if we can be honest, a cake, no matter how artsy, is still a cake. It gets eaten anyway. And it doesn’t say a message unless a message is written on it. If strippers wanted me to bake a cake for them for some lewd event I disagreed with, I would do it. But if they wanted me to pipe erotic images on the cake, I’d sell them the icing to do it themselves. I would be sending no message. I would be giving no endorsement. The strippers would be getting their cake, as they should. The bottom line is if you walk into a public business offering WHATEVER, you should be able to get it. And therein lies the significance of the customers’ sexual orientation. If you are straight and give no indication that you are toting desserts to gay events, you can get anything in Jack’s shop. But if you are gay, you are suspect. Let’s say a gay person genuinely wants a wedding cake for his birthday. Let’s say a gay person is ordering wedding cake for friend. Jack would probably be unwilling to sell because he’d suspect the gay person was lying and was going to take it to his gay wedding. Say a straight person wants wedding cake on their birthday or is ordering wedding cake on another straight person’s behalf. No problem. If you are gay, your experience at Masterpiece is not guaranteed to be the same as if you are straight. And that’s a problem.

        • Bryan

          I’m going to address your points, not necessarily in order, because the only coherence to your post is that you think the baker is wrong. Other than that, it’s kind of all over the place.
          I think it’s clear that he would have sold a cake just not one he had made specifically for their event. From your stripper analogy he would have given them the icing too.
          It’s not your decision whether his cakes are art or not. It’s his decision. If it’s not then art in general is just a matter of public opinion. Whether art is good or not will always be a matter of public opinion of course but not whether something is or is not art. That distinction rests in the artists hands, unless it involves something illegal (such as a painting made from the blood of a sacrificed virgin).
          If a straight individual bought a special order cake (for lack of a better term) under false pretext, there probably wouldn’t be an issue. If you tell the man you want a birthday cake with 3 levels, peach fondant and flowers all over it, that’s probably what you’ll get. It doesn’t matter if your straight, gay, or in between. If that person then takes the cake and presents it at a wedding reception of a gay couple, who’s going to know?
          I sincerely doubt he cares who buys his cakes, whether they’re gay or straight. But to ask him to dedicate his time to make a specific cake for gay wedding is asking him to participate in the wedding. If you asked to buy a cake on the shelf and used it for a gay wedding, he’d be fine. But asking to use his time and talents specifically for a gay wedding is where the line is crossed. And that’s where the other analogies align with this situation.

          • Jeremy L

            I apologize for being unclear and unorganized in what I’m trying to say. I’ll try again, conceding that Jack doesn’t care if you are gay or straight when selling to you.

            “If you asked to buy a cake on the shelf and used it for a gay wedding, he’d be fine.” Yes. I would hope so. However, I’m still unclear if I can go buy something off the shelves from Masterpiece and say it’s for a gay wedding and Jack not try to withhold my cake. I shouldn’t have to lie/keep quiet in order to get a cake for a gay wedding, in other words.

            I also think the distinction between custom cake and off-the-shelf cake is kinda pointless. Jack opened a shop to sell cake to the public, and the public should be able to get everything he offers, custom cakes and off-the-shelf cakes alike. Spending a lot of time on a special cake for an event isn’t participating in the event, it’s doing your job. Because the person happened to order a cake that would take some extra time. They did not commission “art”, even if Jack thinks they did.

    • Darren

      First, there is no such thing as “gay and lesbian”. That’s where the fallacy starts. And did you read the article? It’s about the event not the person.

      Another thing. Real love hurts sometimes. People don’t want to hear the truth because it hurts one’s feelings. There are human rights. Period. And that pertains to all. Marriage is not a right as it’s also only between and a man and a woman. Just because SCOTUS says something doesn’t mean it’s infallible.

      Reason had been thrown out the window. It’s all about sentimentality which is deceiving.

      What ever happened to the saying that a business had every right to refuse service? If you don’t like it, then go somewhere else. Why are you forcing your beliefs on someone else?

      See how that philosophy implodes on itself?

      This article is consistent and reasonable. Forcing someone to do something is totalitarian and not loving.

      • Jeremy L

        There’s clearly a such thing as gay and lesbian. Brown even says so. A gay man is a man attracted to men. A lesbian is a woman attracted to women.

        When did I mention Obergefell? It’s not relevant. The incident at Masterpiece happened in 2012, before Obergefell. Complain about the marriage ruling all you want, it’s not relevant to this.

        “Right to refuse anyone” would mean blacks could be refused for being black. And so many other examples.”If you don’t like it, go somewhere else” is flawed because what if no one wants to serve you? You just out of luck?

        “It’s the event not the person” is flawed. What other wedding would a gay person want? Also, designs for the cake were not discussed. Cake was sending no messages. Couple wanted food, not “art” affirming their marriage. Jack is only now deciding his cake is “art” as an excuse to get away with refusing service. Every public business should sell everything it offers to everyone. It doesn’t matter what the customer intends to use your product for. If you sell it, it should be available to everyone to use how they see fit.

  • It matters to all of us because it highlights what’s come from the cadre of 18th-century Enlightenment and Masonic thinkers’ right’s culture created when they replaced Biblical responsibilities with Enlightenment rights.

    See blog article “America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Blog and search on title.

    Then “Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity.”

  • bbb

    Let’s take a broader look at religion.
    Will the Supreme Court make it illegal for Muslim bakers to refuse gay or lesbian couples the creation of a wedding cake?
    What about Amish bakers? Should they have to make Satanists a wedding cake?
    What needs to be defended is freedom to worship in acts and deeds as well as in formal religious settings.
    God does not care what the government thinks. And Christians who know what God thinks through his word must be able to live according to their beliefs.

  • Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the “wedding” of two women (or men)?

    Is this rhetorical? It’s because homosexuals are a protected class (in Colorado), and you can’t discriminate against a protected class. That’s why you can’t discriminate because of race, either.

    Would you be OK with discriminating by race for religious reasons? Many Christians in the US had religious objections to mixed-race marriage 50 years ago.

    • MorganCourtenay

      Were their religious objections to mixed-race marriage based upon Scripture? Would that tally with Galatians 3:28?

      • Bob Jones famously used Acts 17:26: “From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live

        • MorganCourtenay

          Thanks for your response. (Is that the best good ol’ Jones could come up with? Horrible exegesis). I accept this example.

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us