It’s not reality. He wasn’t taken to court for being a Christian. He was taken to court for discrimination in his business practices. That’s the reality.
SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples
- Thread starter CrittendenWildcat
- Start date
He was targeted repeatedly for his Christian beliefs. No one is so ignorant or naive to believe otherwise. The Woke mob set out to punish him for his sincerely held Christian beliefs.
Have a great remaining to your holiday.
Yes, this is the truth. He was targeted for this very reason, because he was known for being a devout Christian and also for his excellent work, and he's not the only one. Churches have had to change facilities use policies for fear of lawsuits also. We all got the memo to change when the lgbt (it was only 4 letters then) began the assault after gay marriage was made into law. But I digress... When he refused to participate in a gay wedding, he was shut down. They wanted to bankrupt him and put him out of business. They went after him because of his faith. Anyone who denies this is either uninformed, just being obtuse, or is intentionally misrepresenting the truth. And for the one earlier who said the LGBTQ community doesn't attack Christians, it has been a nonstop attack for 20+ years. The woke mob attacks more every day and they will shut you down or shut you up by whatever means necessary. You can't even speak your mind now. Their desire is to ultimately make it a hate crime to even say these lifestyles are sinful or even quote Scripture that states so. I fully expect the Bible to be targeted next. After all, Scripture is clear on all these sexual sins. And yes, it is clear on the heterosexual kinds as well.
Don’t waste your time. I don’t want or need them. I don’t believe in fairy tales.
So again, he was sued for his discriminatory business practices not his Christian beliefs. If it was about his religion, he would have been sued for them long before he was. They went after him for business practices. If it was about faith, all Christians everywhere would be targeted for their faith. Much like Christians target non-Christians.
As far as targeting the Bible, if you are going to ban any book, the Bible should be at the top of the list.
I tell you what. As soon as a Muslim can quote the Koran without being looked upon as a terrorist, then Christians can quote scripture. You made my point about Christians and their views on religion. They want to be able to do their preaching without any sort of recriminations but would absolutely lose their mind if a Muslim did the same things. They would attempt to shut it down without a hesitation. I’d be shocked if most in here wouldn’t be the first to get in their face, you included.
You clearly do not know me. Muslims can preach all they want in America, and they do. This man was targeted because of his religious beliefs, which are the reason for his business practices. His deeply held religious beliefs keep him from participating in a gay wedding. It's that simple. A muslim man shouldn't be asked to participate in a Christian marriage, either. And now, thanks to the SCOTUS, we can all act according to our closely held beliefs. It seems the Supreme Court agrees with me. But even if they didn't, no person should be forced to compromise their deeply held religious beliefs. It's that simple and it is true and right.
If he was attacked for his religious beliefs, he would have been attacked for those beliefs long before a gay couple asked him to make a cake. He was only sued because of his business practices. The courts in Colorado said he was wrong. SCOTUS said he was right. However, he was never sued or attacked for those religious beliefs. This suit and subsequent backlash was about his business practices.
No I’m not. I’m not attacking him for his religious beliefs. He is free to practice whatever religion he chooses. I’m criticizing and attacking business practices. I’m not even attacking anyone in this thread about their religious beliefs. I am however attacking them (moreso defending myself against them) when they try to push their religion on me or anyone else with phrases like I’ll pray for you. That is no different than the “preachers” who stand on a street corner telling everyone they are going to hell. You probably don’t see anything wrong with the actions of Westboro Baptist “Church” either.
Those who try to force their religion on people like most in this thread sure do exhibit that mental illness though. It definitely makes you all easier to identify and avoid.
Yes, like that espoused in the back rooms by the catholic priests and baptist preschers.
Muslims, Judiasm, & Christians have a similar objective morality. Different theology for sure, but very similar views on gender, sex, stealing, murder...etc. Many of our civil laws have been based upon the same. A lawless society is one that is decaying.
You can hate it all you like but without a true objective morality you're left to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. That never ends well & will not here.
You said you would ban the Bible.
The state of Colorado went after the baker. He won on a procedural issue and then was immediately targeted by a trans activist to place the man back in the crosshairs of the authorities. No one sincerely believes he was not targeted for his faith. No one. Posters here have said he should be placed out of business because of those beliefs. Not to mention the death threats and threats of harm he has received.
The state of Colorado fought to the SCOTUS to have the power to force a business owner to speak only as it approved.
The parties to that case both agreed that it was the owner’s sincere religious beliefs that were the crux of the conflict.
You saying belief is a fairytale is okay, but someone saying they will pray for you is pushing their beliefs on you? Come on, man.
Mental illness & a reprobate mind = doing what is right in your own eyes. Morality is objective & cannot be subjective based on what I feel. One may feel like it's a right thing to kill someone but it does not mean it is. The moment you say it's wrong to murder you've just forced you're objective morality on me. That's fine for everyone until the thing you feel like is ok is stated to not be so. Then that one revolts when the thing forbidden is what they desire.
Haha that’s the response I expected and I’m not really going to I was being facetious, I don’t want more of people like you around lol.
If I say it’s wrong to kill, I’m not forcing my morality on you. You are still free to choose whether you think it is wrong or not. It is however illegal. I’m not forcing morality on you by telling you it’s wrong to kill. I’m telling you what the law says. Homosexuality isn’t close to killing. One is illegal. The other isn’t. It is using what you feel is morally right to force your morality on others which in this case is your religion.
So I’ve just read eleven pages of dross from neophytes after being summoned to my ultimate purpose! Mr. ‘Ohmygod stop talking about that cake!’ is here to answer all your bigot bakery questions. Filled to the brim like a Christian crème puff with sugary SCOTUS discrimination decisions. I feel honored to be here speaking as an authority on legal matters at the behest of a lawyer who hates my guts and everything I stand for.
But seriously, to sum up for everyone 303 Creative, as manufactured by the Alliance Defending Freedom as a test case from a nonexistent business using fraudulent information from an also nonexistent potential customer, was decided on free speech grounds since those manufacturers designed it that way by specifying that her potential websites counted as “pure speech” in the case’s stipulations. This ruling creates a carveout in public accommodation laws where inherently “expressive services”, like artists, as Gorsuch names, cannot be compelled to issue speech they disagree with. A cake shop cannot be forced to write “I love and agree with all trans people!!” across the top, but they still have to sell a cake to trans people.
All that being said, this case was always going to be decided this way as it was specifically designed to be by smart people looking for this ruling. It still does not answer the fundamental question the original contention was over, is it legal to discriminate against someone on religious grounds or not? The second Jack Phillips cake case was designed by smart people on the other side to achieve the opposite outcome, namely that Jack Phillips initially agreed to make the pink cake with blue frosting as it contains no inherent meaning and as such does not constitute speech. It was only after finding out that it was for a trans person, thus giving meaning to pink cake and blue frosting, did he withdraw service on religious grounds. These facts are also agreed upon in the stipulations, just like the reverse in 303 Creative.
Basically, SCOTUS punted again, or at least ruled on a specific carveout that most people already agreed with, you can’t make someone say something they don’t want to. But what exactly constitutes that “speech” is still up in the air. As is the freedom of religion argument entirely.
At least I own my beliefs everyday unlike the vast majority of Christian’s who think they can be ******** everyday as long as the walk in a door of the church every so often. The reason Christianity has the problem it does is because of the hypocrite Christian’s (hypochristians as I call them) like the vast majority in this thread. You can kneel and worship your sky daddy. Think that a man was swallowed by a whale and survived. Think another built a boat big enough to house 2 of every animal in creation all you want. You do you but I choose not to believe fairy tales. If I did, I would pick something a little more exciting.
Was he or was he not sued until he refused to do business with someone? I don’t remember him being sued because he went to church. I don’t remember him being sued because he believed a man rose from the dead 3 days after he died. I don’t remember him being sued for any of that. If it was about religion, those atheists you claim are full of hate would have sued him long before he chose not to bake a cake.
The Bible is every bit of as bad as the other books being banned. If it’s truly about the books, it needs to be on that list as well.
Didn't realize we had a Gemstone as a mod.
Is it too much to ask for both "communities" to shut the hell up for a change and stop painting themselves as nonstop victims? Both sides can't claim victimhood but they sure as heck try. What happened to the "pick yourselves up by your bootstraps" America? Now every side whines, says they're being silenced, or like yourself, makes foolish, dramatic predictions like the Bible (gasp!) is going to be "targeted" next. Next. You make it sound as if being a Christian in America is a constant struggle for survival. Do I need to get out a tiny violin for all these victimized communities, particularly the Christian community? Holy hell...
That is the sort of intolerance you pretend to be against.
Why don’t you educate us more about what “the vast majority of Christians” do, because that is the kind of language bigots use to justify their bigotry.
Not intolerant at all. But when they opened the door to banning books, they Bible was fair game with all the sex, violence, etc in it.
I don’t need to educate you. You easily know what Christians are guilty of. I’m not discriminating against Christians at all. I would do business with them without hesitation. I just call them out (and you) for their hypocrisy.
It took about 10 pages for this to get to what it’s always about- how much they despise religion.
You’ve argued relentlessly and still don’t get it.
A Jew should not be forced to make a Nazi themed product if they don’t want to.
A black person shouldn’t be forced to make a KKK themed product if they don’t want to.
Your only context for this is religion because it’s the only lens you have. Even so, our religious freedom is guaranteed. You’ve essentially argued against the 1st Amendment.
And they've never been forced to, as SCOTUS reaffirmed. What about when it's just a pink cake with blue frosting though that even the baker concedes has no inherent meaning? These test cases are being manufactured by both sides to test the limits of these issues. Religious freedom does not mean you have a religious right to sacrifice virgins every Tuesday. It has logical limits just like the others.
It is you who don’t get it. A Jew can refuse to not make a nazi themed product all he wants because Nazi isn’t a protected class. Neither is the KKK. Can a baker refuse to make a Muslim cake simply because she doesn’t agree with that religion? Can an atheist refuse to make an Easter product for a Christian? Can a Kim Davis now refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple because of her religion when she is the only one that can issue them? Does your religiously held belief trump mine? Why does one get to be more important than the other?
It isn't just religion. It's anyone who doesn't wholly agree with everything they want or think. If you don't, they will set out to destroy you. Their favorite weapon is cancel culture but they also really like targeting people for jobs they know they won't do so they can sue them and ruin them financially when they have to pay a fortune in legal fees; win or lose.
SCOTUS spoke clearly on the issue of thought police. That's done. Courts should award defendants attorney fees when the next unhinged person undoubtedly will sue the same person over an ever so slightly set of facts.
The very recent lower court ruling stopped government thought policing by proxying social media.
Finally some sanity is getting restored to this country. Tolerance is a two way street. Cancel culture is atrocious and needs to end.
Curtis, the only thing I will chime in on is if you dont believe the cake maker was targeted I think you need to read a little more on the crux of what has been happening to him. Trans and activist couples have been coming from out of state just to specifically go request things from his shop they know he wont make. I will say I am conservative and Christian, but I struggle on this stuff altogether because any Christian should also know that the Bible teaches things such as Love thy neighbor, treat others as you want to treated, turn the other cheek and hate the sin not the sinner. I dont think we should be treating people differently on the surface because of who they are, at the same time these people are in fact targeting these people with the intent of destroying them and their livelihoods which is disgusting as well. It simply isnt that hard to just shop where people treat you like you feel you want to be treated, let your dollars show your choice. But I dont think targeting people because they dont support you is going to win you any sympathy, as well it shouldnt.
I'm just going to stop you right there. Literally nothing, no matter how obvious and true, will ever change his mind.
The only way you're changing his mind is if you buy mother Jones or vox and make them print something else. Then he'll change his mind because they told him it's what he should do to be an ally
First and foremost, in this very thread, I said I was on the cake makers side in his case. He never refused to sell the couple a cake. He said he wouldn’t make them a specific cake. I have no issue with that at all. He still wasn’t sued for his religious beliefs, IMO. He was sued for his business practices. If it was strictly about religious beliefs, then the cake wouldn’t have mattered. He would have been sued regardless of cake. I don’t believe he should have been sued but he was.
The other cake maker (at least I believe it was a 2nd one but it’s been awhile since I read about them) is simply a jackass for not putting blue icing on a pink cake. If it’s the same baker, then he was right in the wedding cake situation and wrong in this one. This situation deserves a lawsuit. The color of icing/cake isn’t asking for anything special.
You need to reread my posts. I was firmly on the baker refusing to bake the cake for the gay couple because he didn’t refuse to sell them a cake. Just said he wouldn’t decorate one specifically for them. I have absolutely no issue with that at all.
303 Creative was invented out of whole cloth by Alliance Defending Freedom just like you're alleging the Jack Phillips case was. Lorie Smith has never made a wedding website for anyone, let alone a gay couple. The supposed request she filed with the court asking for one was completely fabricated, the man whose information was used had no knowledge of it and is already married to a woman. You can't use that standard of a manufactured case against one side but not the other.