Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Anomalocaris]

........these people..............

A man making a living baking cakes telling off lesbians.....

[Neo-Scholastic]

Unamerican is using government power to compel labor from people and forcing them to express values violating their conscience.

He can choose not to make wedding cakes. He can choose not to make birthday cakes. He can't choose to discriminate against a protected class. In the state of Colorado, where he chose to do business, gays and Transgender are among the protected classes.

It really is that simple.

The State of Colorado is telling a guy who makes 48 cakes a year that they have a compelling state interest in deciding who he may or may not serve with bespoke products. This, after the Supreme Court has already ruled that the State of Colorado was targeting this small family-owned business out of malice for his religious beliefs. And now you all are going to tell me that, somehow the person being oppressed is the lawyer who went out of his way to set-up the baker for a second lawsuit. Please. Pick on someone your own size.

[The Grand Nudger]

Targeting this business out of malice for his religious beliefs, despite the fact that he's a willing activist with a national budget?  Really?  Are all the other christers assholes...too....?

Sit down.

[Angrboda]

He can choose not to make wedding cakes. He can choose not to make birthday cakes. He can't choose to discriminate against a protected class. In the state of Colorado, where he chose to do business, gays and Transgender are among the protected classes.

It really is that simple.

The State of Colorado is telling a guy who makes 48 cakes a year that they have a compelling state interest in deciding who he may or may not serve with bespoke products. This, after the Supreme Court has already ruled that the State of Colorado was targeting this small family-owned business out of malice for his religious beliefs. And now you all are going to tell me that, somehow the person being oppressed is the lawyer who went out of his way to set-up the baker for a second lawsuit. Please. Pick on someone your own size.

That is not what the supreme court decided at all. But you appear to be making up facts to suit as you go along, so I don't know that there's any point in correcting you. Like the ADF, you are intentionally conflating the actions of the original plaintiff with those of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Presumably you think this will escape scrutiny so you can continue pushing bullshit and lies. It has not.

Have I mentioned that I think you're a dishonest and unethical piece of crap lately? I'd kind of walked back on such things given your overall good behavior, but I'm beginning to see that this was probably a mistake.

[Catholic_Lady]

So if anyone tried to say they were refusing to make a cake for a black person's graduation party on the grounds that "black graduations" (which isn't even a thing) is somehow against their moral and/or religious beliefs, I would call BS. I would say that baker is discriminating against the person, and not the event itself, since there is no association between graduation and religion.

Perhaps the best way to handle completely off the wall scenarios like the ones above would be to take them to court and let them figure out whether there is legitimate religious and or moral beliefs behind it. 

Are you suggesting the government should be in the business of deciding what is and isn't a legitimate religion? Because I can see all kinds of wrong with that.

---

LOL.... no I don't think that he has a moral objection to baking a cake.  And in the other case, he specifically said that he would sell them something else, so it is not about the person either (I'm unsure if this was the case here, but I would assume).

If I recall correctly, he also objected to selling lesbians cupcakes. Jack Phillips is a very troubled man.

No, I meant whether the person actually is practicing a religious or moral belief, or not. Not whether their religion is correct.

[The Grand Nudger]

Give em an inch of soft yarn and they'll try to strangle your silly ass for it, Jorg.  

They can't help it.  That's christian moral character in action.

[RoadRunner79]

So if anyone tried to say they were refusing to make a cake for a black person's graduation party on the grounds that "black graduations" (which isn't even a thing) is somehow against their moral and/or religious beliefs, I would call BS. I would say that baker is discriminating against the person, and not the event itself, since there is no association between graduation and religion.

Perhaps the best way to handle completely off the wall scenarios like the ones above would be to take them to court and let them figure out whether there is legitimate religious and or moral beliefs behind it. 

Are you suggesting the government should be in the business of deciding what is and isn't a legitimate religion? Because I can see all kinds of wrong with that.

---

LOL.... no I don't think that he has a moral objection to baking a cake.  And in the other case, he specifically said that he would sell them something else, so it is not about the person either (I'm unsure if this was the case here, but I would assume).

If I recall correctly, he also objected to selling lesbians cupcakes. Jack Phillips is a very troubled man.

In the previous case, he told them that he would sell them other things. I hadn’t heard of this, perhaps you are mistaking it with something else.

[The Grand Nudger]

He told people he was selling birthday cakes.  Turns out he was dirty christian liar....lol. Not that you'd give a fuck, being a dirty christian liar yourself.

[Joods]

Then he needs no exemption from the law, on religious grounds or any other... and has no case to plead before the courts....and yet....

So, does he..as a cake baker, have a moral objection to baking cakes......?

LOL.... no I don't think that he has a moral objection to baking a cake. And in the other case, he specifically said that he would sell them something else, so it is not about the person either (I'm unsure if this was the case here, but I would assume).

Then he lied because he still refused to sell a non-wedding cake to someone in the LGBT community. Clearly he has no issues with baking cakes. He has issues with baking cakes for a certain group of people.

Why does this seem to elude you so much? Furthermore, why are you seemingly okay with what he's doing?

[Neo-Scholastic]

This case is just a transparent cover for anti-religious bigotry. The request was made by a lawyer in bad-faith with the intention of creating conflict. The very sample lawyer asked for a cake to Satan smoking a joint, then one with a Pentagram, then one with that included an upside down cross and a fully functioning vibrator. Anyone can see that this is just harassment of Philips because of his religion. The trans activist lawyer's request was bogus from the start.