Posted on 07/23/2014 9:38:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Colorado baker who was found guilty of discrimination for not baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is appealing the decision.
Jake Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop hopes to win at the appellate level after being told that he must serve gay couples wedding cakes and take a diversity course.
Phillips is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed the appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals last Wednesday.
ADF lead counsel Nicolle Martin, who is involved in the appeal, said in a statement that Phillips did not unlawfully discriminate against anyone, but rather refused to endorse something he morally disagreed with.
"This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it's about the message the cake communicates," said Martin.
"Just as Jack doesn't create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn't create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order."
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins wanted Phillips to make a cake for their wedding reception.
Phillips explained to the couple that he could make them other baked items but, because of his Christian beliefs, he will not make them a cake for their reception.
With the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
The division determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop had discriminated against them. According to the ACLU, the division's findings led the state attorney general's office to file a formal complaint against the company via the state courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Here’s a hypothetical question — would blacks be enjoying the kind of freedom they have today if the Civil Rights Act were not passed?
RE: One is on religious grounds. The other can’t be supported on religious grounds.
So, it is unconstitutional to form a religion for white people only?
Well there is no constitutional basis to force the population to buy a product either, but it happened.
Not at all.
Nope, I was thinking more along the lines of "Self Preservation". 20 lbs of C-4 would put a pretty good bang into any wedding party.
No one is refusing service to anyone based upon their race.
In the case of the Colorado Baker, the homosexuals were already customers. He had never refused them service before. It was the EVENT that was the problem, not the customer.
So, it is unconstitutional to form a religion for white people only?
Freedom of association. But that is not a religion argument. It’s a freedom of association argument.
Thing is, though I don’t support jim crow, I believe it was constitutional, at least for private businesses.
If I owned the company and eventually lost the fight, I’d hire a baker who could really put the face on a HomoCake. You know, full-blown representative buggery for the Bride and Groom. Let it all hang out there. It would be one of the only two cake styles I’d offer.
RE: Freedom of association. But that is not a religion argument. It’s a freedom of association argument.
OK, I’ll play LGBT attorney devil’s advocate.
Then anyone should have the right to refuse service based on the people he wants to associate with...
Therefore, if a racist doesn’t want to associate with blacks, he has the right to refuse service to blacks from his business.
That is my understanding of the case.
But since when has logic ever counted in this Brave new World?
To answer your first question, this is not about eating or actually getting a cake, but about Gay BLT gestapo tactics to seek and destroy Christian businesses, plain and simple.
RE: Thing is, though I don’t support jim crow, I believe it was constitutional, at least for private businesses.
BINGO. Now you’re being consistent.
ALLOWING a racist to NOT associate with blacks does not necessarily mean that one ENDORSES what he does.
LET HIM. The constitution gives him that Freedom.
If he wants to lose business because of his racism, that’s his foolish choice. I’m sure there are those who will pick up the slack.
That is correct. You may not have seen the post, but I said that although I did not support Jim Crow, I do think businesses should have the right to refuse to serve anyone and for any reason. The government telling them who they can and can’t serve is fascism - and unconstitutional.
BINGO. Now you’re being consistent.
ALLOWING a racist to NOT associate with blacks does not necessarily mean that one ENDORSES what he does.
LET HIM. The constitution gives him that Freedom.
If he wants to lose business because of his racism, that’s his foolish choice. I’m sure there are those who will pick up the slack.
Let SOCIETY ostracize the man (I personally will). Get government out of it.
We are in agreement here.
Depends on which Civil rights Acts you are referring.
I will say that Blacks would be much better off if Johnson’s War on Poverty was never waged.
I know, but it’s still a valid question. Would you eat a cake baked for you under threat of penalty?
Imagine Costco saying they no longer allow blacks into their buildings.
What if PRIVATE BUSINESSES in the south had been allowed to continue to discriminate. What would have happpened? In my opinion, they would have all gone under and natural integration would have ensued without any business being told by government how to do business. It would have been a great LEARNING experience in our nation rather than a fascist removal of individual freedoms.
I don't know (or care)if it's constitutional. It's my business. I should have the right to serve or not serve whoever I want. It's an odd concept called freedom.
At one time slavery was deemed constitutional. The constitution is not the end-all, be-all.
RE: Depends on which Civil rights Acts you are referring.
I was referring to the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.