To tell you the truth, every time I hear about a stupid cake for a “marriage” for lawbreaking sodomites, I want to throw a cake! Seriously, it’s getting that bad. But this week a state Court of Appeals ruled to endorse a lower court’s decision to force a Christian baker to bake cakes for sodomy-based “weddings.”
Judge Dan Taubman, Alan Loeb and Mike Berger on the Colorado Court of Appeals bench issued the ruling against Jack Phillips and his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips is being defended by Alliance Defending Freedom.
Phillips was targeted by practicing sodomites Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who file a complaint with the state, claiming discrimination.
Not only has one state official been completely out of line by referring to baker Jack Phillips as a “Nazi,” but Diann Rice, a member of the state civil rights commission, basically said the same thing when she said, “I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.”
Seriously? Refusing to bake a cake for sodomites attempting to redefine marriage, when sodomy had been considered a crime since 1861, but was overturned by a corrupt and lawless legislature in 1971 is akin to the Holocaust and slavery? Surely you jest Ms. Rice! If she was more accurate, perhaps she would look into the crimes committed by those who practice sodomy, many include rape and actual murders.
ADF had argued, “Such alarming bias and animus toward Phillips’s religious beliefs, and toward religion in general, has no place in civil society. At least one commission member holds such beliefs. And her comment suggests that other members of the commission may share her view that people who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman are comparable to those who committed the Holocaust. This anti-religious bias undermines the integrity of the commission’s process and final order.”
The court ignored those comments though and claimed the discrimination was a violation of law. Apparently, they don’t understand what is being communicated in the First Amendment.
“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” said ADF spokesman Jeremy Tedesco.” “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms. We will discuss further legal options.”
Bob Unruh reported:
Specifically, the court said the concern that the bakery would be viewed as endorsing homosexuality was negligible. Taubman said Phillips case differs from another in which the state of Colorado allowed a bakery featuring sexually explicit products to refuse to create two “Bible-shaped cakes inscribed with … ‘homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.'”
Taubman argued the other case centered on “offensive” messages inscribed on the cake, unlike the Phillips case.
“We recognize that a wedding cake, in some circumstances, may convey a particularized message celebrating same-sex marriage and, in such cases, First Amendment speech protections may be implicated,” Taubman wrote.
“As one court observed in addressing a similar free exercise challenge to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: ‘Undoubtedly defendant … has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.'”
Mr. Phillips does not object to serving those who engage in sodomy. What he does object to is providing products that go against his conscience.
Frankly, just because a business decides to discriminate is not a violation of law. This is something I’ve covered many times. The First Amendment’s protections are to be for peaceful assembly. When you break that down, it is discrimination at its core and there is nothing wrong with discrimination. We discriminate for a variety of reasons. I allow certain people in my home and not others. The same is true with the individual business owner.
These two sodomites simply targeted Mr. Phillips in order to perpetrate more lawlessness in the sodomite community and use the heavy hand of government against a Christian man. However, you will notice that not one thing has been done to the numerous bakers who are sodomites, who failed to provide the same services for a Christian man who wanted a Biblically themed cake. In fact, in one instance, another Christian man asked for a cake by a pro-sodomy bakery and had the cops called on him and legal action was taken.
I think this comes down to a similar situation found in Numbers 32. Christian men and women are going to have to take a stand alongside Mr. Phillips should a tyrannical government seek to impose the court’s ruling upon him and resist the tyranny that is coming upon their fellow brother. After all, if you won’t take a stand for him now, there may not be anyone to take a stand with you when they come for you!