"Colorado just seems to be looking for opportunities to punish me for my faith." – Jack Phillips

Christians deserve to be persecuted.

DWF

The Left has peverted, wrong ideas.

Nobody :(

Other

DW2LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundredMazeRoosterWalt_OReagunTheobaldHospitaller

Favourited

DW2BudwickMazeThinkerbellRoosterSynysterGates
"Colorado just seems to be looking for opportunities to punish me for my faith." – Jack Phillips

Explained by Budwick...

You may recognize Jack Phillips. He’s the Colorado cake artist who was at the center of one of the year’s most-talked-about U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Although Jack won an important victory, the State of Colorado didn’t get the message. It is targeting him again! How did this happen? For six years, Jack suffered. He faced threats and government punishment simply because he runs his business according to his faith. Jack declined a request to create a wedding cake celebrating a same-**** marriage. Jack explained that he would be happy to design a cake for the customers for a different event, or sell them anything else in his shop. But he just could not create a cake expressing messages and celebrating an event that conflicted with his deeply held religious beliefs about marriage. Still, the couple filed a complaint, and the State of Colorado punished Jack for living in accordance with his faith.********************************************************************************* In June, the U.S. Supreme Court finally gave Jack justice when it handed down its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Jack won in a 7-2 ruling that upheld his religious freedom. On the very day that the Supreme Court decided to hear Jack’s case in June of 2017, an attorney called Jack’s shop asking for a custom cake. The attorney wanted a cake that would be blue on the outside and pink on the inside in order to celebrate that attorney’s transition from male to female. When Jack declined this request, the attorney filed a complaint with the same Colorado agency that prosecuted Jack before. The agency did not take a position on this complaint while the Masterpiece case was pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. But less than one month after the Supreme Court condemned the state’s anti-religious hostility toward Jack in the first case, the state agency made its first finding against Jack in this new case. Obviously not getting the Supreme Court’s message the first time, the state decided to target Jack again.

Top Comment

Stick to your guns Jack! Freedom is precious!

+774 See / Add Replies

Rooster Rooster

Comments

Stick to your guns Jack! Freedom is precious!

+774 Reply

Rooster Rooster

He should charge them with harrassment!

+444 Reply

that_guy that_guy

In response to “He should charge them with harrassment!

I know, right?!

The targeting is so obvious!

+223 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

Sadly, my once great state of Colorado has been califonicated over the past few decades.

+554 Reply

JustJimColo JustJimColo

In response to “Sadly, my once great state of Colorado has...

I HATE when states do that!

+443 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “I //HATE// when states do that!

Hey Budwick I noticed you are no longer a moderator - why is that?

+111 Reply

LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred

In response to “Hey Budwick I noticed you are no longer a...

Hi Loraine - Thanks for asking!

Yeah, it's been almost a year since I was removed as moderator.

I remember it was during a time when there was a group of members that seemed to be lurking everywhere within the site, looking for reasons to be pissed off and offended and get the offender dismissed.

I honestly don't recall the details, but I was called on the carpet for using a term used by our British friends meaning cigarette, but the discussion I was in was actually about homosexuality. Even though the other person had used the same word - well that person wasn't the target and I was removed.

Pretty boring, eh?

+443 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “Hi Loraine - Thanks for asking! Yeah, it's...

Budwick no not boring at all. They seem to go thru moderators pretty fast, oh well. No matter what you do there are going to be people thinking they are going to be unhappy people. Glad you stayed on the site (jolly)

+333 Reply

LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred

In response to “Budwick no not boring at all. They seem to...

Thanks Loraine!
Me too.

0 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

As a moderate, I was ok with gay marriage, I felt it wasn't my place to tell anyone who they could or couldn't love. Since the LGBT got the right to marry, they obviously have an entire agenda they are hell bent on pushing. Complaining and suing anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda is just so wrong on so many levels. I still think gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but I am tired of their pushing the envelope and I just don't trust them now.

+224 Reply

Flrdsgns Flrdsgns

In response to “As a moderate, I was ok with gay marriage, I...



Thank you Flanders. Sincere, honest reply.
I totally respect that.

+112 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “http://data.amirite.net/user_images/5b7468889a9...

Hmmm....why do you only respect honest replies that you agree with?

+224 Reply

Carla Carla

In response to “Hmmm....why do you only respect honest...

Hi Carla!
Feeling a need for affirmation today?

Fact is I don't agree with his comment - not completely.

I don't think it was easy for typical leftists to step outside of the party line. Komrade lefties have been know to come down hard on those that do. So, I respect that he did so.

I didn't say anything about your comment, cuz until you questioning why I respect good comments - you haven't made any!

But, you're still welcome to post a comment now.

+222 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “As a moderate, I was ok with gay marriage, I...

A man and a woman are married when they DECIDE they are married. It is a matter of community stability, so tribes adopt customs to announce who is married to whom.

Then governments get involved. After the civil war, people in the souoth needed comfort, so the legislatures passed a lot of racist laws, one of which required a license for marriage, specifically so it could be denied to mixed couples. Of course that meant mixed black and white, since nobody cared about any other mixture.

In some areas the state distributes a pamphlet explaining that marriage is a three way corporation consisting of a man, a woman, and the state, for the purpose of producing children. That is how the state claims jurisdiction to require children to attend schools, which would otherwise be a matter of parental authority.

That is how marriage came to be a legal privilege, rather than a natural condition. If people could just get that concept in their heads, all claims of a "right" to marry would be rejected as nonsense.

+112 Reply

that_guy that_guy

do not resist an evil person. ... Give to the one who asks you..." -Jesus (Matthew 5:38-42)

Do not judge, so you are not judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
-Jesus (Matthew 7:1, 2)

In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. -Jesus (Matthew 7:12)

...

I think it's disingenuous to claim that denying service to people is obeying Christ. It's disobeying Christ.

+222 Reply

Maze Maze

In response to “do not resist an evil person. ... Give to...

I agree, but I guess the difference here is that it's not that specific people are being denied service, it's that a specific service is being denied to anyone. If a straight person asked for a wedding cake for a same-**** marriage, they'd be denied it too. There's a difference between having a business and stating what services you will and will not provide and barring certain people from your business entirely.

+223 Reply

TheobaldHospitaller TheobaldHospitaller

In response to “do not resist an evil person. ... Give to...

Hmmm, that sounds rather judgemental Maze.

Do you think the State of Colorado will be using that argument?

+111 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

What I've never understood about this whole thing is why any self-respecting gay person would want to force someone to provide a product for them that they don't want to provide. As the article states, Phillips was not attempting to ban gay people from his shop (that would be an illegal violation of civil rights anyway), he was simply stating a specific service that he doesn't provide. Who wants a cake made under duress? Who wants a cake from someone who is miserable to provide it?

If I owned a cake shop, I would refuse to make a cake with a sexually explicit design or a hateful message or something like that. Are those things illegal? No. But I don't have to provide them if I don't want to. I would not be denying the people who requested them the right to buy anything else they wanted from me, I would simply state that those specific products I don't provide.

+444 Reply

TheobaldHospitaller TheobaldHospitaller

In response to “What I've never understood about this whole...

Outstanding reply!

+222 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “What I've never understood about this whole...

Correct theo. I would think there must be a gay cakemaker who would love the business. People need to support the merchants that provide what they want.

+223 Reply

LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred

In response to “Correct theo. I would think there must be a...

You are again correct.
But, getting a cake baked was not the goal.
Getting a Christian cake maker in trouble was the goal.

+222 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “You are again correct. But, getting a cake...

I'm not convinced they are targeting Christian's, I think the gay community isn't happy to have the same rights as everyone else, I believe they want more, and are demanding everyone accept and embrace them. What they don't get, is that people like myself and a lot of other California liberals are no longer supporting the gay agenda. I believe this sue happy mode is going to backfire on the LGBT community in the near future.

+222 Reply

Flrdsgns Flrdsgns

It is his right to do business with people he likes. Silly he didn't want to mke money from anyone that will pay, he could just do an ugly job bill them and be done.

0 Reply

LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred

I go back and forth on this one.

The reality is SCOTUS ruled in favor of Masterpiece because it found that the Colorado Commission acted with "a clear and impermissible position of hostility" toward Mr. Phillips. They referred, in public, to his religion as "despicable" and compared his "sincerely held religious beliefs to the Holocaust". Phillips, they ruled, was denied a "neutral and respectful consideration of his claims. The State's interests must be weighed against Mr. Phillips beliefs in a way that is consistent with the requisite religious neutrality. But the official expressions of hostility toward religion in some of the commissioners comments were inconsistent with that requirement." The court said the commission "failed in it's duty under the 1st Amendment not to enact laws or regulations with hostility toward any particular religion or religious view point." I've seen several interviews with Philips and he seems to be a reasonable man who truly does have deeply held beliefs that conflict with the wishes of the couple who wanted the cake. He is not some crazy zealot spewing hate speech. One could make a good argument that despite his opposition to same-**** marriage, and homosexuality, he is not truly homophobic. However, the court didn't really address the larger question of religious freedom in this case. But it did in the Bob Jones University ruling of 1983. With an 8-1 majority, SCOTUS ruled that "on occasion the court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religious based conduct." The court said even sincerely held religious beliefs were not always protected if there was a compelling reason. In that case it found racial discrimination was a compelling reason. Google the case. It's very interesting.


I think we need to remember that this issue is about much more than one baker declining to make a wedding cake. If that's all it was gay couples would simply go to a different bakery. The issue is about when a person can be denied the same rights and privileges as other citizens. Sometimes there is a compelling reason. Sometimes not. For instance can a tow truck refuse to pick up a stranded motorist because she had a rainbow flag on the car's bumper? Can a resturant refuse to serve a gay couple because they were holding hands in the dining room? Can a school that takes payment in the form of vouchers, public money, expect the same treatment as other private religious schools? Can it refuse to hire a gay teacher? Despite what many people think even a privately held business is subject to federal and state laws. There are federal and state laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, age, ****, religion, political beliefs, country of origin, physical or mental disability, genetic profile, military affiliation, and even bankruptcy or outstanding debt. However only 25 states have laws protecting LGB people and 29 have them for trans men and women. There are no federal laws regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2015 Obama issued an executive order protecting LGBT people against discrimination in federal employment.

That means I can be sued for denying service to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, regardless of how morally offensive I find their beliefs, but he or she could legally refuse service to me. It means in many states I can be refused an apartment simply because I am gay but if I owned an apartment building I can not refuse to rent to a member of the KKK. That's the reality for me and every other LGBT person in this country. We are not complaining and suing everyone who disagrees with us and we have no interest in destroying Christianity. We don't want special treatment or special rights . We want the same rights and protections that every other American has. Nothing more and nothing less.

(pce)

0 Reply

Chris_PHAET_Demon Chris_PHAET_Demon

In response to “I go back and forth on this one. The reality...

Chris, I read the opinions and found that you seem to be right.
SCOTUS was concerned over the Colorado Civil Rights Division open hostility toward religion and their order was invalidated.

It is indeed an interesting difference compared to the common takeaway form the decision.

Good eye Chris!

0 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

why is it, gay people who want have some sort of union
never go to a MUSLIM BAKER for their cake?
must be reason
I have a idea why
Christians are easy, they turn the other cheek
Jack,you ain't alone
I stopped turning the other along time ago
we be very bad Christians
tell me something I don't know

how about I bake the **** cake... but!
the gay couple go down the street to have it decorated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7g-B7Wy4rU

+222 Reply

Neanderthal_Momdoer Neanderthal_Momdoer

Of course the Colorado Commission hypocrites would never prosecute a Muslim baker for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake.

That would be Islamophobic and racist.

+222 Reply

Thinkerbell Thinkerbell

I have several thoughts on this general subject.
1. My bible does not say to refuse to do business with people for any reason.
2. My bible does not associate making cakes with believing.
3. My bible does not say to try to stop unbelievers from whatever they want to do.
4. The nation is collapsing, has been for over a century, and this entire affair is just another detail in the process.
5. Satan doesn't care who wins or loses, he only wants to stir up a fight. If you join the fight on either side, Satan has already won.

01 Reply

that_guy that_guy

In response to “I have several thoughts on this general...

Huh. That was very well thought out. :)

0 Reply

DW2 DW2

In response to “I have several thoughts on this general...

I bet your Bible DOES mention stuff like honoring God in all things.

Proverbs 3:6
In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.

01 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “I bet your Bible //DOES// mention stuff like...

Yes? It does not say to coerce others into honoring God in all their ways.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

See? Everybody gets to choose! Satan is the one who uses coercion.

0 Reply

that_guy that_guy

In response to “Yes? It does not say to coerce others into...

How exactly is the baker coercing anyone to do anything by refusing to make the cake as ordered?

Seems more like the gay couple and the Colorado Commission are doing the coercing.

01 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

This ** again? Maybe if Jack wasn't such a ** he wouldn't be having these problems.

0 Reply

urwutuis urwutuis

In response to “This **** again? Maybe if Jack wasn't such a...

I think the pricks are the ones suing!

+221 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “I think the pricks are the ones suing!

I think that "transgender" lawyer was a rather obvious setup.

+111 Reply

Thinkerbell Thinkerbell

In response to “I know

Well, that would NOT be Jack.

0 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

Ideas are swinging back and forth. It sucks when that See Saw hits your buddy in the face. Thing is I’m very fiscally Conservative and not so much Socially. It would be nice if people could simply not be angry several times a day about things they only know 20% about maybe. It’s how we as a species continue to be controlled by a group of idiots who learned from the best “Snake Oil Salesmen” of all times. Those people now permanently wear an R or D in front of their names while appearing on television. I’m done with all of it. Throw them all out. Let’s go tribal for a while and start from scratch.

+222 Reply

DW2 DW2

Just to be clear ... the SCOTUS did not rule the baker was within his religious rights to refuse to bake the cake.

They ruled he was within his rights, because Colorado itself didn't recognize "gay marriage" - so his refusal wasn't a violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.

Just part of the ruling: "Since the State itself did not allow those marriages to be performed in Colorado, there is some force to the argument that the baker was not unreasonable in deeming it lawful to decline to take an action that he understood to be an expression of support for their validity when that expression was contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, at least insofar as his refusal was limited to refusing to create and express a message in support of gay marriage, even one planned to take place in another State.
At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. "

- - -

They also ruled that Colorado's punishment of him for his refusal was based on his stated religious beliefs - which was a violation of his First Amendment rights.

In other words, there were really two issues. Related but separate.
If Colorado had recognized "gay marriage" at the time - the baker would have lost the anti-discrimination case issue.

And if the Colorado commission had been "religiously neutral" in it's rejection of his appeal, the rejection would have stood.

01 Reply

Walt_OReagun Walt_OReagun

In response to “Just to be clear ... the SCOTUS did not rule...

A comment by Chris earlier prompted me to dig into the opinions. And I think everything your wrote is accurate with the possible exception of your last sentence. If the Colorado commission had been religiously neutral, then I think SCOTUS would have had to rule on some other aspect of the case. I don't think we KNOW what that ruling might have been.

0 Reply

Budwick Budwick OP

In response to “A comment by Chris earlier prompted me to dig...

True.
It's just my opinion the rejection would have stood.
But it would have been a moot point, since the baker would have won on the first issue anyway.

+111 Reply

Walt_OReagun Walt_OReagun

If you read the SCOTUS decision ... the baker was "okay", because of Colorado's law at the time. The law changed, and he is now in violation of it. Simple as that.

0 Reply

Walt_OReagun Walt_OReagun

Please login or create an account to make a comment.

Sort comments by: Replies Date Score Loves

Find out your friends' opinions

Amirite is the premier opinion-based social network where people from all around the world discover, debate and discuss today's hottest issues. Share your perspective to the world and interact with like-minded individuals on breaking news, hot topics and controversial issues now!

With that many angles, the discussions on Amirite will open your eyes to a panoramic view of your world that you won't get anywhere else, allowing you to see the big picture and discuss it.

Every opinion matters on Amirite.

Sign up to have your opinion heard!

It only takes a second.
Connect with Facebook, Twitter or Google.

or create an account with your email...

Sign Up Already Have An Account?

Login to your Amirite account...

Login Forgot Your Details? Need An Account?

Enter your email address and we'll email you your account details.

Send Details Back To Login Form

Login using...

Login

Forgotten username or password?
We'll send you your username and a new password.

Email Address

Login

Sign up to have your opinion heard!

Show posts as Grid List

By creating an account you indicate that you have read and agree to abide by our rules.

Create My Account